I am a designer and developer and content strategist. I use my experience as a magazine art director and web editor to help publishers, marketers, non-profits and self-branded individuals tell their stories in words and images. I follow all of the technologies that relate to the content business and try to identify the opportunities and pitfalls that these technologies pose. At the same time I am immersed in certain sectors through my content practice and am always looking to find connections between the worlds of neurology, economics, entertainment, travel and mobile technology. I live near the appropriately-scaled metropolis of Portland, Maine, and participate in its innovation economy (more stories at liveworkportland.org. A more complete bio and samples of my design work live at wingandko.com.

Bend Not Break: Enduring Mao's China Led Geomagic's Ping Fu To See The World In 3D

Tina Brown shared what sounds like an amazing book Monday morning on her Must Reads segment on NPR, Bend Not Break by Ping Fu. For those not familiar with Fu or her company Geomagic, it is a memoir about how she grew up during the depravations of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China and wound up founding a very successful and important tech company in America. The title (and book cover) refers to bamboo and the book is being hailed in business circles as treatise on the power of resilience.

I was interested in how a decade of torture, degradation and “re-eduction” could have led her to become a leader not only in the tech world, but in the forefront of what is shaping up to be a 3D revolution. Fu’s company, Geomagic (which was just acquired by 3D Systems) makes tools to help people design in and navigate 3D space. In a recent interview in Fast Company, Fu says, “Once we can provide technology for a 3-D world–once we can go in and out of our own environment digitally or in reality seamlessly–something big will happen. This is the very first time that we humans can start to interact with 3-D data, which is the true reality data in our daily lives.”

It’s a compelling story. Young Ping is sent to live in a prison-like camp in Nanjing where she is beaten, gang raped and forced to eat “Bitter meals” made of dung and dirt, “all part of a considered effort to humiliate and dehumanize her,” describes Tina Brown, “to demonstrate her worthlessness as an individual.” Less remarked upon, but equally important, I think, is that the eight years that preceded her decade of captivity were extraordinarily stimulating and nurturing.

In the first chapter of the book, “Three Friends of Winter,” Fu remembers in vivid detail the stately house, the family dinners prepared by her “Shanghai Mother” (four appetizers, one soup, and eight main courses) and her ”Shanghai Father’s” scholar garden, “a modest version of the symbolic landscapes developed centuries earlier by the educated elite of China.” (They are referred to as her “Shanghai” parents becuause they were actually her aunt and uncle who adopted her from her “Nanjing” birth parents.) In other words her early childhood was the flower of the educated, sophisticated Chinese culture that Mao’s regime stamped out. Without the intellectual stimulation and loving comfort of those years in Shanghai, her odyssey would not have been possible.

That Mao threw this cultural “baby” out with the bathwater of feudal inequality that he was trying to conquer contains a poignant irony central to Fu’s tale. At the end of the Cultural Revolution, she went to University, eventually writing a provocative thesis about infanticide and China’s one child policy. This research bravely forced the issue into public awareness and led to her exile to the U.S., at age 25, penniless and knowing just three words of English. How she got from studying English as a second language in New Mexico to working with Marc Andreessen on the Mosaic browser to founding Geomagic and turning it into an early leader in 3D modeling software is the subject of the rest of the book, well described by Forbes staffer Jenna Goudreau who just conducted this interview with Fu:

Ping Fu is uniquely suited to be an innovator, able to navigate between Chinese and American cultures, between promise and risk, between two dimensions and three. She sees that our ability to master 3D modeling in an everyday way is one of the secrets to transforming the global economy in the 21st century. If more things can be designed anywhere but manufactured close to where they are needed, a big dent can be made in our energy consuming logistical networks. Solving for space in the human scale can solve for space on the global scale as well.

As Fu told Fast Company, “I love in between spaces–art meets science, handcraftsmanship meets IT technology. I love the difference between China and America. In between is where I think opportunity lies. What Geomagic does is kind of like that–we are in between the digital world and the physical world. We translate one to another fluently. Innovation doesn’t happen in silos. Innovation happens when several technologies or several social movements come together. Maybe me living in two worlds–being in China and the United States–has made me comfortable in the in between.”

This idea is not only more efficient and green, it is also radically user-centric, “Shoes will be made to fit our feet, not our feet searching for a pair of shoes that fits.” At the same time, the return of local manufacturing and local services is a humble vision, as well. It will be interesting to watch how the merger of Geomagic with 3D Systems goes. My guess is that like with Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram or Adobe’s acquisition of Typekit, the culture of the smaller company is a big part of the allure—and will have an outsized effect.

Here is a just-published AtGoogle Talk with Ping Fu about her life in 3D:

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

She entered US on 1984 Jan, She become US citizen 1992. She must have green card since 1987. She married 1991（US citizen）。

1987 green card can NOT via marriage. How comes she get green card in such short time only 3 year?

The only way is asylum. In order to get asylum status approved, She must make false statement to immigration asylum office on 1987!!!!

All her story about abuse, rape, in prison, children workers, expile, deport, everything are fake. The only reason she make those fake statement to immigration is to get asylum green card!!!

Jean, please contact immigration asylum office to pull out the fake statement she made on 1987. If the asylum office statement she made is same statement as her book says, as your article says. This would be serious violate the Federal immigration Law!!!! This is serious CRIME!!!! Even it was 1987!!!!

US people can’t tell she is a lier, but any similar age people grow up in China would easy know she is a BIG liar.

If she lie to immigration service to get green card, ok, but know she lie to the whole world!!! We got to stop her. President Obama should know he hire a such liar. Fake statement to immigration is a CRIME.

All her excuse are not established without evidence. You need to provide the evidence about the newspaper article.

If she tell the truth, she don’t have to remember anything. Otherwise, A liar needs a good memory.

As someone with a background very similar to hers, I find her book very troubling. Many of the experiences described in her book are extremely improbable to put it modestly and completely impossible based on my own experience.

Students during cultural revolution all have experienced disruptions in studying and had to work in farms or factories in some fashion, but the experiences she described were unheard of especially in a city like Nanjing which I was very familiar with.

Infanticide did happen during the cultural revolution and perhaps still does in some parts of the country, but systemic and large scale incidents described in the book were absolutely not possible.

In addition, the part that he she left China and arrived in US was very sketchy. I’d refrain from calling her book all lies because I assume she made the fabrications to sell the book. What’s troubling is a woman of her intelligence would distort facts in such a brazen way.

It was so obviously unbelievable to anyone familiar with that particular period of history that the first time I heard Tina brown describing the book, I find myself completely dumbfound. Now almost everyone who knows her is coming out to discredit her, which is really not that difficult to do.

She would need a lot of character witnesses in her support if she ever wants to resurrect her reputation.

Ping Fu’s book showed her legendary life but was made up with little truth. Any person who grew up in China with common sense about China’s conditions and history, would know that what Ping Fu claimed in her book was full of distorted untruthful narratives. It’s sad that people believed her stories, it’s also necessary to be wary of her impact on people’s perspectives toward Chinese immigrants. She is bold and outlandish, and certainly has hurt our feeling by selling her fabricated stories without even little respect for history and readers.

If we accept Ping Fu’s 2012 memoir (Bend Not Break) at its face value, then we will need to believe that Sylvester Stallone, a Hollywood celebrity starring as Rambo and Rocky Balboa, sexually harassed Ping Fu when she was working as a waitress at a Chinese restaurant in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

According to Ping Fu’s memoir, pages 60-61, Sylvester Stallone, a large, muscular man with dark hair and an asymmetrical face, startled me by reaching around and grabbing her rear end with his enormous right hand. Instead of giving an appropriate apology, Sylvester Stallone allegedly laughed and told Ping Fu, “Do it again.”

Sexual harassment is a serious allegation that should not be tolerated by any American woman. As an advisor to President Barak Obama, she should set a good example by publicly condemning such misconduct, and demand an apology from Stallone.

As of today, Ping Fu has not given any clarification on whether the alleged sexual harassment did indeed happen. Neither has she asked Stallone for an apology and for a promise that he will not do it again. Inaction on her part suggest that we need to independently verify certain disputed facts, before jumping to the conclusion of whether Bend, Not Break should be classified as fiction, or non-fiction.

On February 11, 2013, Sir Harold Evans published his controversial article, The Persecution of Ping Fu, in The Daily Beast.

Sir Evans used racist, stigmatizing and xenophobic fighting words to suppress valid exercise of First Amendment rights by Chinese Americans. Without any credible evidence, Sir Evans described Chinese Americans as “a mob”, “encouraged” or “hired” by the Chinese Communist Party. His characterization of a Chinese American as “Hermaphrodite” was patently offensive.

Sir Evans abridged our Freedom of Speech, infringed on our Right to Peacefully Assemble, and suppressed our Right to Petition for a governmental redress of grievances.

In the past 6 weeks, Sir Evans received 509 comments on The Daily Beast website. So far, he has not given any reply.

In 2007, CBS terminated “The Dog House with JV and Elvis” show after an on-air prank call to order “slimp flied lice” from a Chinese restaurant.

By comparison, Sir Harold Evans’ vituperation makes The Dog House’s prank call rather benign. However, Sir Evans has not made any apology, has not retracted his racist comments, and is still in control of his Daily Beast pulpit.

In the past 3 years, Sir Harold Evans published 29 articles, or 38 days per article. The projected date for his next article is March 20, 2013.

We shall see whether Sir Harold Evans uses his next Daily Beast article as an opportunity to make amends with the Chinese American community.

In Korematsu v. United States, our Supreme Court upheld an Executive Order requiring internment of Japanese Americans. The need to protect against espionage purportedly outweighed Fred Korematsu’s civil rights. In presenting its case, the United States government withheld its internal report indicating that it ha no credible evidence of Japanese Americans acting as spies or sending signals to enemies.

More than 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent became scapegoats, and spent a few years at various internment camps. Thousands of Nisei joined U.S. army and fought to defend the American flag.

Later, President Jimmy Carter ordered an investigation on whether interning Japanese Americans was justified by the government. The “Personal Justice Denied” report found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty and recommended reparation payments to the internment camp survivors.

Three decades after the $20,000 payment to internment camp survivor, Chinese Americans are becoming scapegoats for possible cyberwar, trade war and currency war between China and the United States.

In Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break controversy, Chinese Americans are unfairly accused of being cyberwarriors hired by Chinese Communist Party.

Should some American journalists use Chinese Americans as scapegoats for what the Chinese government might or might not have done?

Please note that Chinese Americans have also given their Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. They should not suffer as scapegoats.

Other than the few remaining Native Americans whose ancestors crossed the Bering Strait, most Americans have ancestors who are immigrants from Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Throughout American history, immigrants from Ireland, Italy and other foreign countries were blamed for economic problems here at home.

In 2012, Red Dawn tried to capitalize on China bashing by showing a group of high school teenagers fighting against Communist Chinese/North Korean paratroopers. In the original 1984 Red Dawn, the invaders in the movie were from the Soviet Union, which has since then disintegrated.

In the ongoing Bend, Not Break controversy, Ping Fu and her PR team astutely used China bashing to deflect questions raised by Amazon Truth Seekers. With the complicity of Sir Harold Evans of The Daily Beast (Newsweek), the promoters of Bend, Not Break branded Chinese Americans as Hermaphrodite Cyberwarriors.

China bashing might be politically correct today. Given the state of our economy, it is foreseeable that China bashing will gain more popularity, and Chinese Americans will suffer as a consequence. Therefore, Amazon Truth Seekers have a social responsibility, with the assistance of conscientious journalists who might step forward, to help Americans at large understand the negative impact of racism and xenophobia on our society in the long run.

With due respect, you should take responsibility for your Lane Sharman anecdotes in your 1996 memoir, Piao Liu Ping (Drifting Bottle).

In 1996, you were 38 years old. If you were under 18 at that time, “I was clueless about business and entrepreneurship” would have been a believable exculpation. Your parents helped you in proofreading and editing your 1996 memoir. Even if you were clueless at 38, your parents should have helped you in ensuring the genuineness of your Drifting Bottle anecdotes.

When you chose to publish your 1996 memoir, you had lived in the United States for more than 12 years, learned about the American way of life from your first American husband, sworn your allegiance to the Star Spangled Banner, and learned about the European way of doing things from your second husband. Twelve years in the United States should have helped you in overcoming whatever adversity you might have suffered prior to your arrival to America. Most Jewish Americans do not use their experience in Nazi concentration camps as excuse for not taking responsibility here in the United States.

You should provide a translation of your Piao Liu Ping, pages 61 to 80 (Lane Sharman stories), and post them here in New York Times blog or Amazon Discussion forum. If you need additional help, you can also contact Weican Meng (Watson), the Chief Editor and Manager of Boxun News, who interviewed you recently regarding your Bend, Not Break. Watson is a Duke University graduate, and is only a few minutes away from your office.

After you have posted the English translation of your Piao Liu Ping, please offer a more tailored apology to Mr. Sharman.

You should also rewrite your Lane Sharman stories, and post the revised, true stories here in New York Times and Amazon Discussions.

Lane, I am sorry your integrity is questioned by people who don’t know you or me. Let me state publicly here. Lane is one of my heros and I love him dearly. My success today was significantly influenced by learning from him and by his compassion and support of me when I was a struggling new immigrant and a student.

Taking content out of context from a Chinese book with censorship in China, disregard what I wrote in Bend, Not Break, to attack Lane’s integrity is wrong.

I wrote the Chinese book, which is a collection of essays, using material of first 10 years of my life and observations in America in early 90s. The book was heavily controlled and edited by a Chinese state owned publication house and I was limited to what I can write. Anything not allowed in China then was deleted or altered.

In Bend, Not Break, I openly admitted my ignorance and poked fun of myself for what I wrote in the Chinese book: (p131-132)

If there is anything in the Chinese book that can be read as questioning Lane’s integrity or honesty, that is entirely my fault. I was clueless about business and entrepreneurship at that time and I carried imprint by years of brain washing during CR. It only illustrates my ignorance.

Lane is one of the most outstanding people who I had the fortune to work for long time ago, I learned a lot from him. His integrity and kindness are self-evident through what I wrote in Bend, Not Break and from people who know him.

Editorial integrity is important, and I am not in a position to assess the factuality of some of the things that Ping Fu has written. The purpose of the story the I wrote was to discuss how her life experience led her to technological innovations with a humanist purpose.

So I am a bit alarmed that the comments here have been about general character bashing as opposed to what the democratization of 3D thinking could do for people all over the world.

Asian-Americans are often the targets of “soft-racism,” which is no less pernicious than the more overt kinds. Hate is hate and love is love, and everyone knows the difference. I choose to emphasize the positive, even about imperfect people. What other kind are there?

Mr. Kosner, “The purpose of the story the I wrote was to discuss how her life experience led her to technological innovations with a humanist purpose.” If her life experience (presented to you) is fake, then how do you conclude her life experience led her to technological innovations?

” I choose to emphasize the positive, even about imperfect people.” Do you think ends is more important than means? Integrity, honesty and “ play by the rules” in achieving American dreams can be overridden by “business success”?

Only a person with integrity can inspire others. A person with integrity does not have to be perfect, but cannot be two-faced.

Writing a book about one’s life for the Chinese audience which bashes Americans and later writing a very different version of the same life for the American audience but with invented stories of personal suffering does not sound like integrity to me.

Even for “business success” is in question. In fact, if one take a look at her 2 marriages, one can probably draw this conclusion, She is quite successful in her marriages. Each marriage just boosted her “business career” one notch up. (1) Her first marriage (which she never mentioned publicly, until recently after the BNB controversy), gave her a green card, so that she can work legally in Lane Sharman’s company earning $80,000 annually (as a half-time job, while she is a full-time student). She divorced three years later, that is the normal required time to stay for the green card probation period. (2) The second marriage, gave her the 3-D startup company, established mainly by her then husband. When they divorced, she took over the company.

Without these two marriages, Ping’s path could be very different from “business success”.

Ping’s Drifting Bottle is a Chinese version memoir published in 1996, when she was already an American Citizen and the book was written when she was in Hongkong (at that time, a “free world” ruled by UK).

In the book, Ms. Fu claims to have learned some business tricks (which appear dishonest dealing/cheating customers) from Lane Sharman, the owner of the company Ping worked for at that time.

She wrote on p.64: “An American co-worker told me his experience. First, pretend to understand even if you don’t; otherwise, you won’t get the business. Second, do not reveal any secrets; otherwise, you won’t make big money.

“The first time I went out [to solve a client’s computer problem], I proved myself to be a big fool because I was honest. In the middle of that night, a secretary of a law firm called; she was almost crying when she said all of the firm’s computers had stopped working. She was preparing materials for the next day’s court hearings. I immediately rushed to the law firm with the tools. A quick examination showed that the problem was with the power cord. I replaced it, and the computers immediately returned to normal.

“The next day, I reported the job to Lane. God knows why his face was full of dark clouds; he didn’t utter a single praise and turned away. I asked other employees and learned that I shouldn’t have told the lawyer’s secretary the reason [the computers failed to work]. Smart consultants would have pretended to touch here and poke there, and would have sent the secretary home. The next morning, the computers were fixed and a bill for $1000 could be mailed to the lawyer. But I fixed the problem in a half hour and could only make $100.

“Gradually, I learned many tricks to get businesses and make money for the company.”

You wrote “Editorial integrity is important, and I am not in a position to assess the factuality of some of the things that Ping Fu has written. The purpose of the story the I wrote was to discuss how her life experience led her to technological innovations with a humanist purpose.”

You certainly treated BNB as her memoir. Otherwise you would not mention “her experience” and her “innovations”. You obviously did not read BNB as a science fiction. Now, you are lied. BNB is a fabricated memoir. So, do you still want to discuss her life experience on Death Star?

You wrote “So I am a bit alarmed that the comments here have been about general character bashing as opposed to what the democratization of 3D thinking could do for people all over the world.”

Fabricating memoir, fabricating excuses , fabricating her education, fabricating again and again, you would agree those were not character related, right? You might say that Everybody lies. But what is to fabricate a memoir to cheat readers for money and to promote her lies in media cross the globe and intentionally lied to many journalists ?

You wrote “Asian-Americans are often the targets of “soft-racism,” which is no less pernicious than the more overt kinds.”

It is not a racial issue on Ping Fu’s lies. But it is big issue when most media and including you intentionally ignore Asian American’s voice on commenting on Ping Fu’s BNB.

You wrote ” I choose to emphasize the positive, even about imperfect people. What other kind are there? ”

I think that you chose to promote lies if you had clearly known that Ping Fu’s memoir was fake and her many experiences were fake. You don’t want lie to your readers, right?

I am sure there are careless, irresponsible, even hateful comments everywhere on the Internet, and I can completely understand it if you are alarmed by them. But I sincerely hope that you have read the comments from some respectful critics of Ms. Ping Fu. They have presented substantiated arguments that put the integrity of her into serious question. This is not about unreasonable requirements for one to be “perfect”. I as a critic myself know every well that nobody is perfect. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some basic standards for conducts. If a simple observation that nobody is perfect can brush away questions regarding honesty and integrity, why do we still need the media as watchdog for conducts of public figures, since any wrong doing can be vindicated by imperfection of human nature?

Please ignore the angry, irresponsible rants that I assume there may be plenty on the comment session, but focus on the evidences presented by respectable individuals like Mr. Albert Wang. These people have done considerable research to verify the claims made by Ms. Ping Fu. Their actions are not out of hatred or jealousy, but out of the deepest respect for values like integrity and honesty. These values are responsible for countless good things that have been made happened in our society. Defending these values is not negative, it is positive.

Once again, please don’t shut out the voice of so many critics who had worked tirelessly, unpaid, to uphold basic values of the society. They put forward solid evidences. At least please express your disagreement as why these evidences that so many considered making a compelling case to contest Ms. Ping Fu’s integrity as simply “general character bashing”.

The long awaiting Suzhou University letter (in reply to Langlang Wang’s inquiry about Ping’s degree and other critical claims) is published on amazon. It is up to Ping and her PR team to prove or disprove the authenticity of the letter’s content. I know they will try to question the letter itself, such as if there is an official seal, letterhead, signature, whether the letter acceptable in US court etc. But that’s not my point here. My point is, whether the description (about Ping’s degree and her other allegations) in the letter are true or not. It is up to Ping and her PR team to prove or disprove. Hope she can response promptly, as soon as she did to reply to Mr. Lane Sharman’s comment.

–

A recap of the letter:

(1) Ping did not have a degree from ShouZhou University.

(2) She withdraw from school on March, 1982. (note, March is critical)

(3) “Finger checking” never existed

(4) She was not assigned to do, and she did not do any thesis or paper about “female infant killing,”

(5) Her English course is mandatory, and her score was above average (B+ or A- if translated into US score system).

I saw the same comment elsewhere and thought the reply from user Nancy Li was reasonable:

NancyLi Posted: Tue 4/16/2013 2:28 PM I don’t know what that ‘letter’ is about, but it’s a terrific book. The subject’s credentials are well documented from UCSD and Univ of IL, it’s not unusual for a second printing of a book to include corrections, and I have received high scores in courses of languages I cannot speak.

Who provided the information you claim is from Suda? I wouldn’t put much confidence in it without an accountable spokesperson. Even then, given the turmoil of the time, many people are still at risk, many things occurred that no one wants to discuss or verify. My family has examples of this too.

I saw this response elsewhere and though the reply from Nance Chen is reasonable:

Nance Chen: Nancy Li,It’s strange that you want to use your own experience to confirm Ping Fu’s claim of knowing only three English words when she herself boasted her mastery of 900 English sentences which came very handy when she arrived in the U.S. according to her Chinese memoir. It is equally very strange that you accept all Ping Fu’s outlandish claims without any question yet “wouldn’t put much confidence” in the letter “without an accountable spokesperson.” Did Ping Fu provide any “accountable” spokesperson when she made those claims such as being imprisoned in China, attending UNM as a graduate student, holding a graduate degree in Chinese literature, being an adjunct professor at Duke, etc. the list can go on and on. Why did she remain silent on all these issues when questioned? Why don’t you ask her for any accountable spokesperson to come forward to back up her claims?

I agree with you that a letter purportedly from Suda, without proper authentication, should have low probative value in Amazon Truth Seekers’ quest toward unvarnished truth.

In order for the Suda letter to be properly admitted into evidence, the signatory of the Suda letter, such person’s official title at Suda, and such person’s contact information, should be publicly disclosed.

The question is: Who bears the burden of proof? Who should take the responsibility of verifying Ping Fu’s educational credentials in China and in the United States.

Ping Fu is the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems, a New York Stock Exchange-listed company. Presumably, DDD’s Human Resources Department would have a file on Ping Fu’s professional qualifications and educational background.

Ping Fu continues to claim, on her Bloomberg/BusinessWeek executive profile, that she has PhD in Chinese literature from Nanjing University, China, and an MA in Chinese literature from Suzhou University, China. Elsewhere, Ping Fu claims that she is an adjunct professor at Duke University.

In light of the 1996 book, supporters of Ping Fu had been using “mute English” to explain the contradiction between the two books, but Ping Fu herself, in response to questioning, had clearly stated that she had zero level English, and she hadn’t taken the English class in Suzhou University. Thus, it is not really relevant whether one can achieve high score without being able to speak the language. Even without this letter, the 1996 book already contradicted Ping Fu’s claim of English level.

This letter is provided not by the usual “reliable source”, but is allegedly the communication between an individual netizen and the school. But rather than discrediting it as false or unreliable, I think the so called “reliable sources” should be ashamed of themselves for failing the public in investigating into this matter. Whether the letter is true or false, what had truly happened in Suzhou university, these questions can be very easily answered if they bother to investigate.

Through out this matter, the diligence of netizens had been ahead of “reliable sources”. It is them who uncovered the 1996 memoir, which were first similarly dismissed just as this letter as not from reliable source. But it’s veracity had been completely confirmed. I think this letter will be similar. Information regarding this case hadn’t been proactively sought, but intentionally ignored by the so called “reliable sources”. Under such curcomtances, I value such leads from netizens.

I saw another response elsewhere and thought the reply from Wang Lang is reasonable:

Wang Lang: I posted the following response to Indii on NYT.

Indii,

In light of the 1996 book, supporters of Ping Fu had been using “mute English” to explain the contradiction between the two books, but Ping Fu herself, in response to questioning, had clearly stated that she had zero level English, and she hadn’t taken the English class in Suzhou University. Thus, it is not really relevant whether one can achieve high score without being able to speak the language. Even without this letter, the 1996 book already contradicted Ping Fu’s claim of English level.

This letter is provided not by the usual “reliable source”, but is allegedly the communication between an individual netizen and the school. But rather than discrediting it as false or unreliable, I think the so called “reliable sources” should be ashamed of themselves for failing the public in investigating into this matter. Whether the letter is true or false, what had truly happened in Suzhou university, these questions can be very easily answered if they bother to investigate.

Through out this matter, the diligence of netizens had been ahead of “reliable sources”. It is them who uncovered the 1996 memoir, which were first similarly dismissed just as this letter as not from reliable source. But it’s veracity had been completely confirmed. I think this letter will be similar. Information regarding this case hadn’t been proactively sought, but intentionally ignored by the so called “reliable sources”. Under such curcomtances, I value such leads from netizens.

Nancy Li’s comment is indeed very reasonable, though I am afraid that Ping Fu might be offended by Nancy Li’s comparison. Here is my reply to Nancy Li.

Nancy Li, It’s strange that you want to use your own failure to speak the language to validate Ping Fu’s claim of knowing only three English words when Ping Fu herself boasted her mastery of 900 English sentences which came very handy when she arrived in the U.S. according to her Chinese memoir. You are certainly no match for Ping Fu because she is a language genius as she picked up the language so quickly at the age of 25, at which, according to John Batchelor, “the brain is shutting down from learning other languages.” While you accept all Ping Fu’s outlandish claims without any question yet “wouldn’t put much confidence” in the letter “without an accountable spokesperson,” you are inadvertently suggesting Ping Fu’s failure to provide any “accountable” spokesperson when she made those claims such as being imprisoned in China, attending UNM as a graduate student, holding a graduate degree in Chinese literature, being an adjunct professor at Duke, etc. Your reasonable comment only highlights the unreasonableness of Ping Fu and her associates.

Online business profiles are compiled by bots and have errors all over the place. I have a movie credit that’s not mine and I haven’t been able to get it fixed – have tried for over 5 years and my correction requests seem to go into the ozone.

Yep, I can confirm the Duke affiliation, but you don’t know who I am, so it’s probably not useful to you.

I don’t know what game you’re playing, but claiming a document was provided by a university, while withholding the source’s name, is wasting a lot of comment space.

Are you affiliated with Fang? If you cooperate with Eddie, it gives that impression.

You seem to behave like Nancy Li, using your own failure to correct errors to defend Ping Fu for her deliberate misrepresentations. Could you explain why Ping Fu did not correct her interviewer when the interviewer said Ping Fu had a Ph. D.? It wouldn’t take her “over 5 years” to correct that error; she could have simply told the interviewer she did not have a Ph.D. Why didn’t she do that?

Your argument is so weak, but even if it is awkward for Ping Fu to point out she did not have a Ph. D degree during the interview, it would not be awkward for her to tell the interviewer later on she should not publish this misinformation online. Why did she choose not to do that?

Finally, it is officially confirmed by Suzhou University: Ping did not have a BA degree from there. http://www.amazon.com/Suzhou-University-officially-verified-shameless/forum/Fx1M49LYP8YZYQ4/Tx18P51ZHHT6PFB/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1591845521

In case you do know yet, Ping Fu wrote another book in Chinese which was published in China in January 1996.

In that book, titled “Drifting Bottle: Random Notes of Living in America,” Ms. Fu had a normal and happy childhood. She lived in Nanjing and was doted on by both parents and did not experience much hardship. To her, working as a housemaid for a wealthy Jewish family in Albuquerque and being treated badly by the mistress of the house was the hardest thing she had to endure up to that point in her life. She wrote about learning dishonest business practices from working for a consulting company in San Diego.

There are other details that do not match. For instance, Ms. Fu claims to know only three English words when she landed in America; but in “Drifting Bottle,” she said she had memorized sentences in English 900, a popular textbook in China in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ms. Fu’s Chinese publisher touted Drifting Bottle as a “true narrative” of a Chinese girl’s success story in America.

I can recite an impressive amount of memorized prose in multiple languages. It eventually makes conversational language easier to learn, but the brain doesn’t work the way you suggest, when plopped in the middle of a new place with a non-native language.

I don’t find inconsistencies in the 2 books and don’t understand why you’re trying to kick up dust where there isn’t any.

If you’re the same Cindy Hao who contributed to the NYT article “True or False? The Tussle Over Ping Fu’s Memoir”, I would have thought you would be more objective.

If you are not “in a position to assess the factuality of some of the things that Ping Fu has written,” you should then check facts first before writing this article.

FYI: Early last month, a group of Ping Fu’s alumni, who are Chinese Americans, along with other truth seekers, contacted Suzhou University (Soochow University) regarding her description of her life at the university, her graduation thesis on infanticide, her knowing only three English words when she came to America, among other issues related to her life at the school, and got the university’s response which contradicts every claim she made.

According to the university, she withdrew before graduation, there was never such a thesis on infanticide, no students of her class were arrested for any criminal conduct, and she did not earn any degree from the university as she claims but she did take two years of required English classes.

Since she apparently fabricated her life stories in China, her readers on the Amazon discussion threads (more than 270 threads already) started to analyze the book and scrutinize every detail of her stories, including her stories after her arrival in the United States. It is found that her alleged experiences in the U.S are equally fake.

For example, through FOIA requests or inquiries to relevant authorities, it is found that her alleged kidnapping never took place, she was not enrolled in any graduate program in the University of New Mexico as she claims, and she filed a fake BA in Chinese with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and made false claims about having Ph.D degrees in Computer science and Chinese literature. And as an international student, even her working through college should not be praised because working off-campus without work authorization is a violation of the Federal Regulations on F-1 visa students, and yet she showed utter disregard of the American law by bragging about her illegal working in the book, and her bragging about turning down an offer of Lane Sharman’s company that could have made her a multi-millionaire in 1989 when the company was sold to AT&T is distasteful since Mr. Sharman just clarified the day before yesterday he did not sell his company.

I would also like to inform you that Ping Fu published a Chinese memoir in 1996, which contradicts so drastically with her English memoir that you would not believe these two memoirs were written by the same person. It is clear that she knows what to tell for her intended readership to prevent her fabrications from being immediately identified. In fact what she told the Chinese media about her life in China is different from what she told to the English media. She is indeed living a double life in two worlds.

If you don’t believe it, do fact checking yourself. Otherwise, your statement would suggest that journalists don’t care about truth and only care about sensationalism.

Your comment reminds me of what Ping Fu said when people asked her how she got her green card (later she revealed she got her green card by means of her first hidden short-lived marriage): “Chinese international students had many ways of being able to stay in the United States. One of those was to fabricate bizarre tales of having faced persecution in China and apply for political asylum. It didn’t matter how fantastic you made your experiences, Americans would still believe them to be true.” I could only hope that was not what she was thinking when she was fabricating her own bizarre tales. But then again, maybe she was right as aren’t her bizarre tales readily accepted by you and the media even at the expense of making yourself appear incredibly gullible and at the risk of losing your professional integrity?

Ping Fu should provide an English translation of her Piao Liu Ping, pages 61 to 80 (Lane Sharman stories), and make them available to the general public.

If Ping Fu need help with English translation, she can reach out to Weican Meng (Watson), the Chief Editor and Manager of Boxun News. Watson interviewed Ping Fu regarding your Bend, Not Break.

Weican Meng went to college and graduate school in China. He is a Duke University graduate and Stanford fellow. He is only a few minutes away from your office. He should be able to translate Piao Liu Ping (Drifting Bottle) if Ping Fu needs help.

After Ping Fu has posted the English translation of her 1996 memoir, she should acknowledge what she said about Lane Sharman, take responsibility for what she said, and offer a sincere, unconditional apology.

On April 13, 2013, Y. Chen published a comment in Forbes, disclosing some potential conflict of interest between Ping Fu and the publisher of her 1996 memoir, Piao Liu Ping (Drifting Bottle). Y. Chen’s original comment can be found at:

Set forth below is Y. Chen’s comment, with a few non-substantive editorial revisions from me:

* * * * *

Ping Fu:

You are now blaming China’s censorship of your Drifting Bottle for your description of dishonest business practice at Lane Sharman’s company, but you expressed your “profound appreciation” for “repeated encouragement and patient waiting of Ms. Yu Chaifang from Hubei Youth and Children’s Press” in the Preface.

I was actually very surprised to see that your Drifting Bottle was published by this children’s book publisher because of the somewhat adult content in this memoir did not seem to get censored at all.

I always suspected that you got your Chinese memoir published through some acquaintance in China because that is a fairly common practice there. Some people even had to go through “back door” or bribes to get their inferior quality manuscripts published.

Hubei Children’s Press is not a major publishing house and Drifting Bottle was certainly not appropriate for their intended readership.

My puzzlement was finally cleared when someone found a link on the Internet the other day which disclosed that Ms. Yu Chaifang, the publisher of Hubei Children’s Press, is your cousin.

If this family relationship between you and the publisher is true, would you please clarify what kind of role your cousin played in the publication of your book? Censorship? Nepotism?

Why did you pick this children’s press, of all the state-owned publishing houses in China, to publish a book with episodes not appropriate for children?

Now after you have profited from this book, you simply threw Ms. Yu Chaifang, the publisher, under the bus, along with MeiMei Fox (the co-author of Bend, Not Break) and many others before her.

What a shrewd businesswoman you are!

***** I agree with most of Y. Chen’s comments, assuming that Ms. Yu Chaifang is indeed Ping Fu’s cousin. John Batchelor of John Batchelor Show, in commenting about the Bend, Not Break controversy, repeatedly emphasized the importance of disclosing “Non-Transparent Motivation.”

Ping Fu did not disclose her “Non-Transparent Motivation” in publishing a memoir with adult content (e.g., love triangles, Herbert’s relationship with Ping Fu when he was legally married to his Austrian wife, etc.). Through Amazon Truth Seekers’ collective efforts, such Non-Transparent Motivation is gradually being exposed.

Ping Fu is the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems Corporation, a NYSE-listed company. As an employee of a public company, Ping Fu is required to comply with DDD’s Code of Conduct. Even though the publication of her Piao Liu Ping (Drifting Bottle) took place prior to her becoming the chief officer in charge of DDD’s strategies, her recent response to the discovery of her Drifting Bottle memoir should be measured against 3D Systems’ Code of Conduct.

3D System’s General Counsel, as well as DDD’s Chief Executive Officer, has written notice of Ping Fu’s recent conduct. It is imperative that they conduct an investigation in accordance with their own Code of Conduct. DDD’s Code of Conduct can be found at:

It is still my opinion that Didi Kirsten Tatlow is the most socially responsible journalist in this Bend, Not Break controversy. Without her contributions, the Amazon Truth Seekers would not have been able to make as much progress. The above list would have been a shorter one.

Ping Fu is an American citizen. She is the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems, a New York Stock Exchange listed company. She is 55 years old.

Ping Fu spend the first 25 years of her life in China, and the most recent 30 years in the United States. Quantitatively, her American experience constitutes 63% of her life.

Ping Fu might have experienced some adverse childhood events in China. She might have some emotional memories of her China years. She might have a few Nightingale moments for what might have happened, or what might not have happened, during Chinese Culture Revolution—a topic of interest to probably 1% of Americans.

Thirty years in the United States should have given Ping Fu the opportunity to heal her emotional wounds. Her recollections of her American experience, as recorded in her memoirs, Bend, Not Break (2012) and Piao Liu Ping (1996), should be more accurate than her childhood memories.

According to Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break, Sylvester Stallone, a Hollywood star also known as Rambo, used his enormous right hand and grabbed her rear end while she was working as a Chinese waitress in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Ping Fu also remembers John Wayne as a customer. Did she meet John Wayne’s ghost by any chance? John Wayne died several years before her arrival to the United States.

Did Rambo-gate really happen?

Should Ping Fu amend her Bend, Not Break?

Should Sylvester Stallone apologize to Ping Fu for the insolent behavior?

Again, I agree with you that: (1) I was moved by Bend, Not Break, and (2) Second printings usually have corrections.

I was moved by her Bend, Not Break, and gave her 2012 memoir a 3-Star rating in my Amazon Customer Review. When I read Bend, Not Break, I did not specifically focus on the issue of whether it is a non-fiction or fiction. I was surprised by the ensuing controversy, and became a friend of Amazon Truth Seekers because Sir Harold Evans used racist, stigmatizing and xenophobic vitriol against Chinese Americans in his questionable support for Ping Fu.

Had you read my Amazon Customer Review, you would have realized that I enjoyed reading Bend, Not Break because it is a good companion book to Amy Tan’s Joy Luck Club, a fiction on relationships between Chinese immigrant mothers and their American-born daughters.

Since the outbreak of the Bend, Not Break controversy, Ping Fu has acknowledged that the 1st printing (hardcover edition) of her Bend, Not Break is her emotional memory, fraught with Nightingale moments.

A reclassification of Bend, Not Break from non-fiction to fiction would solve most of the factual problems.

As a fiction, Ping Fu’s account of Sylvester Stallone’s grabbing her rear end in a Santa Fe restaurant, a.k.a. Chinese mentality Rambo-gate, would be an interesting scene for Stallone’s next movie, The Expendables 3.

However, Bend, Not Break lacks factual accuracy to be marketed and sold as a fiction book.

With a simple reclassification of Bend, Not Break as a fiction, this novel can become a best-selling Hollywood movie, a sequel to Joy Luck Club.

Ping Fu has said she is willing to talk, according to Didi Kirsten Tatlow, the New York Times reporter who uncovered Ping Fu’s undisclosed first marriage and debunked Ping Fu’s alleged 3-day kidnapping in Albuquerque.

Given that you posted your comment in NYT, you should know that Ping Fu has said publicly she will correct errors.

You and I are in agreement that there is a need for a second printing (paperback) of Bend, Not Break, which should reflect the corrections that Ping Fu has promised.

Let’s hope that Adrian Zackheim of Penguin/Porfolio, the publisher of Bend, Not Break, will be a socially responsible publisher, and publish the corrected second printing of Bend, Not Break as soon as possible.

In the meantime, Ping Fu and Adrian Zackheim should discontinue their aggressive marketing of the hardcover edition of Bend, Not Break to public libraries throughout the United States.

For your benefit, please find below the four questions that should be answered by Ping Fu, with the help of 3D Systems’ General Counsel on how DDD’s Code of Conduct should be interpreted:

1. As a socially responsible American citizen, should Ping Fu amend and correct the factual mistakes in Bend, Not Break, a second memoir she published in 2012, at the age of 54?

2. Ping Fu also remembers John Wayne as a customer, when she was working as a waitress at a Santa Fe restaurant at the age of 27, above than the legal age for employment under U.S. labor laws. Did she meet John Wayne’s ghost by any chance? John Wayne died in 1979, several years before her arrival to the United States, on or about 1982, 1983 or 1984.

3. Did Sylvester Stallone really sexually harass Ping Fu, when she was working as a waitress at the age of 27, by using his enormous right hand to grab her rear end?

4. Assuming that Ping Fu, at the age of 54, truthfully disclosed the Chinese mentality Rambo-gate, should Sylvester Stallone apologize to Ping Fu, a Presidential advisor, for the insolent behavior?

Ping Fu is an American citizen. She is the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems, a New York Stock Exchange listed company. She is 55 years old.

Ping Fu spend the first 25 years of her life in China, and the most recent 30 years in the United States. Quantitatively, her American experience constitutes 63% of her life. If you exclude her childhood (the first 18 years), Ping Fu has spent more than 80% of her adult years in the United States. Should Ping Fu continue to use Chinese mentality to explain her way of thinking? Should Ping Fu continue to conduct herself the Chinese way? Or should she conduct herself according to 3D Systems’ Code of Conduct?

You should note that DDD’s Code of Conduct contains prohibitions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As an American citizen and a corporate officer of an American company, Ping Fu should refrain from engaging certain un-American activities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, when she is conducting business in China. If Ping Fu is interested in learning more about the FCPA, she can contact DDD’s General Counsel for legal advice.

Ping Fu might have experienced some adverse childhood events in China. She might have some emotional memories of her China years. She might have a few Nightingale moments for what might have happened, or what might not have happened, during Chinese Culture Revolution.

Thirty years in the United States should have given Ping Fu the opportunity to heal her emotional wounds. If she is still emotionally troubled due to her childhood adverse experience in China, is she capable of serving her duty as an advisor to President Barak Obama?

Her recollections of her American experience, as recorded in her memoirs, Bend, Not Break (2012) and Piao Liu Ping (1996), should be more accurate than her childhood memories.

According to Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break, she was kidnapped by a Vietnamese American from Albuquerque airport upon her arrival to the United States. Allegedly, the Vietnamese American’s wife left her husband, and Ping Fu was forced by the Vietnamese American man to babysit his three American children of Vietnamese descent. According to Ping Fu, do Vietnamese Americans have a higher propensity to commit crime in our American society?

According to Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break, Sylvester Stallone, a Hollywood star also known as Rambo, used his enormous right hand and grabbed her rear end while she was working as a Chinese waitress in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Ping Fu also remembers John Wayne as a customer. Did she meet John Wayne’s ghost by any chance? John Wayne died several years before her arrival to the United States. Did Rambo-gate really happen?

Should Ping Fu amend her Bend, Not Break?

Should Sylvester Stallone apologize to Ping Fu for the insolent behavior?

Feel free to answer these questions on behalf of Ping Fu.

The better approach is for Ping Fu to answer these questions herself, and offer apologies when it is appropriate to do so.

Ping Fu recently apologized to Lane Sharman, co-founder of San Diego Energy District. In her 1996 memoir, Ping Fu claims that she learned certain unethical business practices from Lane Sharman, and overbilled Lane Sharman’s customers by a factor of 1000%.

Given Ping Fu’s courage to publicly apologize to Lane Sharman in her New York Times comment, Ping Fu should also have the courage to deal with her Stallone rear-end encounter, Vietnamese American kidnapping, and other anecdotes in her non-fiction memoir.

“Conspiracy theorists (you) can pick any topic and weave a tale around it.” —which meant those collect of lies from Arizona, to INC, to BNB and to the many “corrections” and excuses today.

“I was moved by Bend, Not Break, and it, along with the clarifications that have already been made, is consistent with my experience and knowledge.” —==How do Ping Fu’s many stories keep with your experience and knowledge when she keeps changing it? here are some of them “Ping Fu changed “deported” to”expelled” Fu changed”not her finger” to” her own finger”. She changed “horse” to “I saw the horse in my dream.” Ping Fu changed ” Red Maple” to “ Wu Go” She changed to “I did not publish the research paper” when people wanted to read it.

“I’m not troubled by 2 books with a lifetime between them having different perspectives.” ——-so you intentionally ignore the story of first three days Kidnapping? I don’t know how you feel when you read one harvest chicken by planting eggs.

“I won’t ask anyone associated with Bend, Not Break to confirm anything because it is unnecessary. Meanwhile, your ranting isn’t credibly backed up.” ——It is your choice to look up Ping Fu as a role model, But She is not fit to be put in public as a model of fabricator and she is not fit for a state-level adviser.

“Second printings usually have corrections; maybe you’ll feel better then.” ——She needs to clean up not only her BNB, but also the many talks, writings formal interviews with journalists in many years, many places. She has huge character related issue.

Dear Indii (and/or NancyLi), I use “and/or”, because I saw two identical comments: one on forbes and one on opraph, one by Indii and the other by NamcyLi. It is very unlikely two people can write exact same text.

Anyway, here is my reply to your comment on my post about SuZhou University Letter: (1) What formality are you expecting for the letter?

(2) The letter is a reply to some private inquiry as we see. If you cannot prove it is a forgery, then you have to accept this letter is authentic. Even you may question the authenticity of the letter, but so far have you found any inconsistency of the letter?

There are conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t mean every time one suspects of something, it’s a conspiracy theory. With your logic, you can easily say that Lance Armstrong doping, Sexual abuse by Catholic priests, are all conspiracy theories.

In the 2013 book and in interviews, it is stated that Ms Ping Fu only speaks a 3 English words. Many defenders argue that it doesn’t mean she only learned 3 words, but it means she learned “mute English”.

First of all, I want to point out that Ping Fu had clearly stated she had level zero English. Thus the “mute English” excuse presented by her supporters had already excluded by herself.

Now I will also argue it’s wrong to interpret “only speaking 3 words” as mute English. This argument is not necessary as shown above, but I still want to make it just to show how far her supporters had gone against common sense to defend her.

In proper English, no one express “mute English” by “only speak a few words”, and no one will take “only speak 3 words” as “mute English”. It simply doesn’t carry that meaning. It’s a very contrived excuse. It doesn’t make any sense. If you can speak “help”, then you shouldn’t have any problem speaking “hell”, “held”, “hello”. If you can speak “sorry”, then you should also be able to speak “so”, “sock”, “son” … There is no logical path from “only speak 3 words” to “mute English”. This connection is created solely for defending Ping Fu.

About MS Ping Fu’s English level, I had said this in my words. My words are never as good as Ms Fu’s own words. So for her supporters who are still trying to explain the contradiction about her English level using the “mute English” excuse, here you have it, her own words.

“In college, English language classes were offered, but not required. I had “level zero” English, just like most Americans know a few words of Spanish or French. I tried to learn more English when I knew I was going to the U.S., but when I arrived, I only remembered a few.”

Ping Fu, the author of the controversial Bend, Not Break, is also the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems, a NYSE-listed company. As an executive officer of a public company, Ping Fu is required to conduct herself in accordance with DDD’s Code of Conduct.

As part of its corporate housekeeping, 3D Systems amended and restated its Code of Conduct earlier this month. The April 2013 updated version of DDD’s Code of Conduct is available from its corporate website, under Investor Relations section:

Even though DDD has updated its Code of Conduct, it has not filed a copy with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Alan Smithee, an anonymous participant in Amazon Discussion forum on Ping Fu’s responsibility as a corporate officer of a NYSE-listed company, raised some important questions.

The pseudonymous Alan Smithee raised the following questions:

• What are the obligations of 3D Systems, a NYSE-listed company, under the U.S. Securities Laws and Regulations, in respect to its Code of Conduct?

• Should DDD file its April 2013 amended and restated Code of Conduct with the SEC?

• How soon should DDD file its revised Code of Conduct? Should DDD file it now, in a Current Report on Form 8-K? Or can DDD wait a few weeks, and file it as part of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q?

The best person to answer these questions is DDD’s General Counsel. He has the support of DDD’s outside counsel, who can research SEC’s rules and regulations, and talk to SEC staff for guidance if necessary.

As a public company, DDD is required to file various reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

DDD’s 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K can be accessed from the following web link:

According to DDD’s 2012 Annual Report, the prior version of 3D Systems’ Code of Conduct was filed as an exhibit to its Current Report on Form 8-K, dated December 1, 2006. This prior version of DDD’s Code of Conduct was filed one day after its amendment and restatement on November 30, 2006. It is still available from the SEC’s Edgar database:

Ping Fu is the Chief Strategy Officer of 3D Systems. As an officer of a public company, Ping Fu is required to conduct herself in accordance with DDD’s Code of Conduct, as amended and restated.

According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR public record, 3D Systems’ November 30, 2006 Code of Conduct was filed as an exhibit to its Current Report on Form 8-K, dated December 1, 2006. The November 30, 2006 Code of Conduct was filed one day after its amendment and restatement, and is available from the SEC’s Edgar database:

In its Current Report on Form 8-K, dated December 1, 2006, 3D Systems represented to the SEC as well as the investing public that:

Item 8.01. Other Events. On November 30, 2006, the Board of the Corporation amended certain provisions of the Corporation’s Code of Conduct. These modifications include primarily technical changes to reflect the change in the address of the Corporation’s headquarters as well as related contact information. Additional provisions were modified to cover additional matters related primarily to the confidentiality of information and other data protection matters. The foregoing is only a summary of the modifications to the Code of Conduct approved by the Board on November 30, 2006 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the copy of the Corporation’s Code of Conduct, as amended, attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K. Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits 99.1 Code of Conduct, as amended effective as of November 30, 2006

On April 11, 2013, 3D Systems further amended and restated its Code of Conduct, in response to a friendly reminder from a friend of Amazon Truth Seekers. As of April 19, 2013, the updated Code of Conduct (April 2013 edition) still has not been filed with the SEC.

Whether the April 2013 Code of Conduct should be filed with the SEC is a question for DDD’s General Counsel.

Most NYSE-listed companies are socially responsible and voluntarily comply with the SEC rules and regulations.

However, every company has its own corporate culture.

The general instructions to Form 8-K is publicly available from the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form8-k.pdf

It is up to the General Counsel of 3D Systems on how he interprets Form 8-K instructions, on the issue of whether DDD should promptly file a copy of its April 11, 2013 amended and restated Code of Conduct with the SEC.

Amazon Truth Seekers do not have the standing to enforce SEC rules and regulations, unless one or more Amazon Truth Seekers happen to be a public shareholder of 3D Systems.

According to Yahoo Finance, 3D Systems has a market capitalization of $3 billion. More than 80% of DDD shares are held by American investors at large. Therefore, it is possible that one or more Amazon Truth Seekers is a public shareholder of DDD.

DDD’s SEC filings over the next few weeks will answer the question: Whether the April 11, 2013 amended and restated Code of Conduct should be filed with the SEC?

Let’s just wait and see. When you ask a good question, the right answer will present itself in due course.

Albuquerque Police Department’s response, as confirmed by Albuquerque City Clerk, coupled with Ping Fu’s prior inconsistent story in her 1996 memoir, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Ping Fu’s alleged 3-day kidnapping story is a fabrication.

Silence on the part of Ping Fu and her sister, Hong Fu, when APD refuted Ping Fu’s allegations for more than one month, also shows that Ping Fu cannot provide any justification for her fabrication.

* * * *

On April 19, 2013, Reynaldo Chavez, Records Custodian/Supervisor of Albuquerque Police Department, reconfirmed that APD completed my additional public records request dated March 6, 2013, as subsequently supplemented, and that there is no responsive information. Mr. Chavez is available for questions or comments. He can be reached at (505) 768-2007 or at chavezr@cabq.gov.

APD has confirmed that it does not have any record (e.g., 9-1-1 phone call, incident report, criminal complaint against the kidnapper, etc.) of Ping Fu’s alleged kidnapping.

Ms. Bailey Amy, City Clerk of Albuquerque, also stated that APD has responded as completely as possible regarding my request for records relating to Ping Fu’s allegations. If a responsive document exists, APD would have provide it. Amy Bailey can be contacted at (505) 768-3030 or abailey@cabq.gov.

* * * *

On March 6, 2013, I made my initial request for information, pursuant to New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act, relating to Ms. Ping Fu’s alleged kidnapping in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Specifically, I requested the following information: Records relating to the 3-day kidnapping in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as alleged by Ping Fu in her memoir, Bend, Not Break and in her interviews as reported in various news articles.

Albuquerque Police Department was provided with excerpts from Ping Fu’s 2012 memoir, Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds. According to Bend, Not Break, Ping Fu was kidnapped by a Vietnamese-American on arrival in Albuquerque, New Mexico and locked in his apartment to care for his very young children, whose mother had left, in a bizarre incident.

Specifically, APD was given the following excerpts from Bend, Not Break, regarding the alleged kidnapping in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

(a) As soon as I stepped inside,…, he dashed out of the small apartment. I heard him lock the front door from the outside with a padlock….I… searched the dingy apartment for a back door or a window whose bars I could slide my petite frame through–any hope of escape. I found none. I saw no telephone, either… I was a prisoner.

(b) Hours passed and the sky grew dark, but the children’s father did not return. I wondered how long I might be held captive,…Through an open barred window, I began shouting one of the few English words I knew: “Help”…. The next day I tried again. My voice grew louder and more desperate with each passing hour, as we all became hungrier and I lost hope that my captor would ever return to set us free.

(c) Finally, on the third day, we heard shouts just from outside, followed by the pounding on the apartment door. “Help, Help” I screamed. Moments later, police busted the door open. At last, a neighbor had heard us, and called the cops.

(d) Two burly policemen began to interrogate me. “Do you know your kidnapper? Why did you get into a stranger’s car? How did you end up inside his house? …Did the man hurt you?

Albuquerque Police Department was also informed that the kidnapping incident was first reported in John Brant’s article, Entrepreneur of the Year: Ping Fu, in December 2005 issue of Inc Magazine.

APD was given the following excerpts from John Brant’s article:

(i) She pressed on to Albuquerque, where her luck again soured. There was no one waiting for her at the airport. She had no ride to the university, and no money to pay for one. The air outside the terminal was thin and dry and stung Ping’s travel-swollen eyes. She sat down on her suitcase and waited. After a while a man approached. An Asian man. Ping watched him with combined wariness and hope. He turned out to be Vietnamese, but of Chinese origin, and he and Ping could communicate, though not well. Ping told her tale in brief. The man offered to drive her to the university.

(ii) Ping and the man didn’t speak further. Instead of delivering Ping to the university, he drove to a small stucco house in a working-class neighborhood. The man took her inside, where she was faced with three small children, who looked up at her with the same commingled wariness and hope with which, a half hour earlier, Ping had regarded their father. She recalled her own exile, when she was the same age as these children.

(iii) The man left, while Ping watched in bewilderment. He padlocked the door from the outside. For three days–the same seemingly endless span of time she was locked away in prison–Ping stayed in the house with the three children. When the food ran out, she stood on a chair at a half-open window and screamed one of her three words of English: Help.

(iv) A neighbor heard and called the police. After much confusion and many tears the police sorted out the mess. They delivered Ping to the university.

Albuquerque Police Department was also given a copy of Didi Kirsten Tatlow’s article, dated February 20, 2013, in New York Times, “True or False? The Tussle Over Ping Fu’s Memoir”.

As reported by Didi Kirsten Tatlow, a New York Times reporter, A spokeswoman at the Albuquerque Police Department’s Records Office, where the alleged kidnapping took place, said she could not locate such an incident in their records.

In her 1996 memoir, she painted a negative picture of our American society. If she was really kidnapped in Albuquerque, she would have very strong incentive to include such story in Piao Liu Ping, because it would help her to sell her first memoir in China. The fact that Ping Fu’s 1996 Piao Liu Ping did not mention anything about her alleged 3-day kidnapping in Albuquerque contradicts her later inconsistent statement in 2012 Bend, Not Break.

Moreover, according to her 1996 memoir, she went out on a dinner date on the third day of her arrival in Albuquerque, and was upset that the guy (her neighbor in China) did not call her during the first 2 days. In the realm of non-fiction, Ping Fu could not have been kidnapped by a Vietnamese American man for 3 days, and at the same time go out on a dinner date during her alleged captivity.

A reasonable person would conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ping Fu fabricated her Albuquerque kidnapping.

Moreover, a reasonable person would believe that Ping Fu fabricated such story in order to make her Bend, Not Break more sensational, in order to sell her memoir.

* * * *

Hong Fu is Ping Fu’s younger sister. Hong Fu spend her childhood in China with Ping Fu. Hong Fu followed Ping Fu to the United States, and has been living in Arizona for close to 30 years. In toto, Hong Fu has known Ping Fu for about 50 years. Richard Lynn Ewald, Ping Fu’s first husband, was married to her for only 3 years. Herbert Edelsbrunner, Ping Fu’s second husband, knows Ping Fu since the early 1990s. Therefore, Hong Fu knows Ping Fu the best. A few months ago, Hong Fu agreed to be interviewed by an Australian newspaper. However, Hong Fu’s news article was never published.

Hong Fu could have chosen to support her sister, Ping Fu, and stand by Ping Fu’s stories in Bend, Not Break. For example, Hong Fu could have stated whether Ping Fu wrote her about the alleged kidnapping from Albuquerque airport, and caution her sister to be vigilant during her passage to America. Even if Ping Fu did not mention the Albuquerque kidnapping in her letters to China, Hong Fu could state whether Ping Fu told Hong Fu about this alleged kidnapping when they get together for various family events and when they take vacations together.

The fact that Hong Fu chose not to make any public statement to support her own sister should be taken into account in evaluating Ping Fu’s credibility.

Over the years, Ping Fu has hired Savvy Marketing Group and many other public relations firms to paint a rosy picture of Ping Fu’s life. However, if you exclude those paid consultants and business associates, no one who actually knows Ping Fu has come forward to vouch for Ping Fu’s stories.

* * * *

Finally, Ping Fu would have publicly commented on APD’s response if she questions APD’s integrity and reputation.

Albuquerque Police Department is the largest law enforcement agency in New Mexico. Albuquerque has a population of 550,000 with APD sworn personnel numbering more than 1,000. Like the other U.S. law enforcement agencies, APD does follow its own policies and procedures in responding to 911 phone calls, kidnapping, interrogation of suspects, interview of witnesses, and handling of cases involving children. By following its policies and procedures, APD has made substantial progress in reducing violent crime rates in the City of Albuquerque for its residents.

Many dedicated, professional officers have given APD the improvements in crime rates, the high clearance rate of serious crimes and the overall effectiveness of APD to serve the community. APD continues to build on this foundation, and is a law enforcement agency that serves as a good example of professional policing.

Ping Fu appeared publicly in New York Times to offer her apology to Lane Sharman for fabricating stories about him in her 1996 memoir.

Ping Fu should also apologize to APD for denigrating APD’s integrity and professionalism, in order to sell her book.

* * * *

If Ping Fu wants to challenge Albuquerque Police Department’s response, she can make a public statement herself on why ADP’s integrity and professionalism should be questioned.

On Page 66, she wrote” Less than one year away from completing my master’s degree in computer science, I dropped out of the University of New Mexico.” But UNM stated that Ping Fu was never enrolled as a graduate student there.

In her book she described in detail her working experience, such as waitressing in a Sante Fe restaurant where Stallone allegedly grabbed her rear-end “with his enormous right hand,” and working for Lane Sharman’s company, making close to $80,000 part-time as a foreign student. However, she remained silent when asked whether she violated the federal laws by working off-campus as an F-1 visa student and whether she filed joint tax returns with Richard, her hidden first husband through whom she got her green card before divorcing him.

She also remains silent when asked whether she made up the story that Lane’s company was sold to AT&T and her 5% stake would have made her a multi-millionaire back in 1989.

While she lost no time in blaming her editor, her reporter and her ghost writer for some minor issues, her silence on the above major issues speaks volume.

Bloomberg/BusinessWeek is a trusted source of information for many American investors who entrust their retirement savings to NYSE-listed companies. Bloomberg/BusinessWeek is also a reputable media used by the business community in conducting due diligence on their business partners.

Ping Fu continues to claim that she has PhD in Chinese literature from Nanjing University, China, and an MA in Chinese literature from Suzhou University, China. However, Ping Fu has not been able to substantiate such claims. There is no record of her doctoral dissertation. Suzhou University has rebutted Ping Fu’s claims. According to Suzhou University, Ping Fu withdrew from her undergraduate studies prior to earning her bachelor’s degree.

Is it True that Bloomberg/Business executive profiles contain erroneous for everyone she knows? Or is Ping Fu the only person she knows who has a Bloomberg/BusinessWeek executive profile that contains erroneous information?

It sounds too much for you to ask them to correct the mistakes (that always give Ping more credentials than she has).

Then, just show us one correct official source about Ping’s credentials for public to refer to. I or other truth seekers can help her to correct the information one by one using the official information from Ping.

Why is it so important for public to know her credentials?

Ping is a public figure in both business (CSO in DDD) and politics (Advisory board for President Obama).

Ping came out with no time to reply Lane Sharman’s comment for damage control. Why can’t Ping do the same to correct the misinformation on these public listings of Ping’s credentials?

One more question, is there any erroneous info for DDD’s CEO, CFO, and CTO in Bloomberg Businessweek and other public listings?

Another example of how Ping Fu twists the fact to cover her lies only to expose more of her lies:

On Page 25 of BNB, while describing “the savagery of the Japanese army” during the Nanjing Massacre in 1937, Ping Fu wrote: “More than twenty thousand women were raped…” and then she went on to say “I learned that the Rape of Nanjing Memorial Day falls on May 30, my birthday.” Yet when readers pointed out the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Day is on December 13, Ping Fu said, “The May 30th Massacre is called 五 卅 惨 案 ( 又 稱 五 卅 大 屠 殺 ). I didn’t know it is translated as ‘Nanjing Road Incident.’”

What kind of explanation is that? By using the phrase “the Rape of Nanjing” which clearly identifies with the Nanjing Massacre and is well-known through Iris Chang’s book, it was no doubt that Ping Fu was referring to the Nanjing Massacre, not the May 30th massacre, which is actually more commonly known as May 30th Tragedy, a bloody incident that occurred in Shanghai in 1925, with 13 demonstrators killed by Chinese and British police, and did not involve rape at all. How could Ping Fu, who grew up in Nanjing, get these two mixed up? Even if she “didn’t know it is translated as “Nanjing Road Incident,” there was no reason for her to translate it into “the Rape of Nanjing Memorial Day.”

Ping Fu’s comment only shows how a liar is caught up in the web of her own lies, and how a stretched lie is bound to be busted.

Ping Fu continues to claim, in her Bloomberg/BusinessWeek executive profile, that she has a doctorate degree from Nanjing University in China. Such claim constitutes a material misrepresentation. Ping Fu admitted herself that she left China about 30 years ago, without completing any college degree. Because she also claims that she did not have any formal education in China, she probably did not even obtain a high school diploma in China.

Even if Ping Fu is not at fault for creating the factual errors in her Bloomberg/Business executive profile, she does have an affirmative duty to promptly correct such mistakes. She can contact Bloomberg/BusinessWeek, and amend and restate her executive profile so that the public would not be misled. However, Ping Fu has chosen not to take the initiative to correct the misrepresentation.

Most Americans are socially responsible citizens. Honesty and integrity is very important in the business world. We trust Bloomberg/BusinessWeek because we can reasonably believe in the accuracy of information provided by Bloomberg/BusinessWeek.

Falsifying educational credential is a serious offense. Most American companies would take appropriate disciplinary actions against an employee who falsely claims to have a doctorate degree. Ping Fu’s company does have a written Code of Conduct. As a socially responsible corporate citizen, Ping Fu’s employer should ask her to promptly remove the misleading information from her executive profile.

This is what Ping Fu’s resume looks like in a research paper published in July 1996: “BA in Chinese literature from SuZou University, China, in 1983.”

“Ping Fu is technical program manager of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include geometric visualization, computer graphics, virtual environments, volume modeling, computational geometry, and combinatorial topology. Fu received her MS in computer science in 1990 from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, her BS in computer science in 1988 from the University of California, San Diego, and her BA in Chinese literature from SuZou University, China, in 1983.”

“We had a student by that name graduate with an MS from UIUC May 1990 and her Advisor was Jane Liu. She also obtained a BA in Computer Science & Economics from the University of CA, San Diego in 1988 and a BA in Literature from Suzhou University-China in 1982. Her original application file indicated she attended the University of New Mexico from 1984 to 1986, but no degree was awarded.”

How come Ping Fu couldn’t remember what year she got her BA from China? This pretty much explains why Ping Fu is nervous about the letter from Suzhou University.

Looks like you did a lot of research to try and show that Ping Fu has claimed to have a degree from Suzhou.

My experience is that, in papers such as the one you cited, the final prep for publication (including addition of titles, subheads, pullquotes, and biographies) is done by a journal staff member. This is likely a transcription error (she did *study* Chinese literature at Suzhou.)

There are two clues that this is a transcription error, and not a misrepresentation by Ping Fu: the mistake in spelling (which she wouldn’t have made), and the fact that the claim appears in none of her other academic papers or articles (at least, not that I can find.)

Errors such as this are common. Even if she wrote to the journal editors to correct it, they woudn’t have done anything. A BA isn’t her terminal degree, and is about as meaningless to the article as whether or not she graduated from High School.

You cite the old chestnut about her original application to UIUC including a claim that she had a BA from Suzhou.

Possibly it’s time to clue you in: UIUC has dedicated staff to answer inquiries about student records, and they are fastidious about adhering to the requirements of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). They only provide “directory” information (which, according to the UIUC Registrar, does not include the content of the student application file, advisor name, or previous degrees/colleges.) They also log and publish all responses to FOIA requests publicly, on the Web.

So, as a start, xgz’s claim about Ping Fu looks more than a bit suspicious, by including non-directory information (that would not have been released by UIUC), and completely falls apart once you look at their FOIA log — which shows no inquiry where this information was provided.

I suspect that xgz completely fabricated the information that he or she published. Given the “attack” tone of his/her articles, it wouldn’t be too hard to believe.

As for you, zfan: you’ve been aggressively attacking Ping Fu for quite some time now. You’ve made it apparent that you’re willing to say anything — whether true or not — in your quest to discredit her. I’m curious about “why?” If I look at the body of your posts, all around the Web, it appears that this is, for practical purposes, your full-time job. Why would you spend so much time and energy in a quest to destroy someone who has done you no harm? And please don’t say “I hate liars” — it will just make you look bad. There are major liars out there who are causing serious harm to our country and its citizens, and based on a simple google search, you’re spending zero time on them. Let’s have a little truth, please.

Thanks zfan and other truth seekers for spending time to debunk lies. This world becomes a better place because people like zfan who care about honesty, integrity and play by the rule. At Internet age, and after this Ping Fu saga, whoever plans to fabricate stories or credentials has to think twice before they put their words out to public.

I have a simple question, plain and simple, but very important, see if you or Ping Fu can simply provide an answer.

Here is my simple question to Ping Fu, simple but important. It is the root of her coming to the US. It was claimed by many with Ping Fu herself as the only source of that information. So please address it directly.

This is not about her publication or investigation of anything; this is not about her 3 day imprisonment which does not exist anywhere. I would accept it if she meant to say 3 day detention.

My question is about Ping Fu’s coming to the United States, specifically, Ping Fu, were you deported, exiled, or you escaped? This is single incidence, but so far you offered two versions, the latest being “escape”. Let’s take them one by one:

1. Deported / exiled: a. How come there was no passport issued to you? b. How come US does not have any record of this deportation? c. How come there was no law enforcement escorting your departure at the airport?

2. Escaped: a. How could you escape as a high profile anti-revolutionist? b. Did Deng, Xiaoping helped with your escape? Or what did he help you with? c. Was it prison break? Were you a fugitive at large? Escape explained why there was no passport issued and why there was no law enforcement escorting you at the airport. But it does not explain why, as a fugitive or escapee, you were seen off by large noisy crowd of your family members and relatives, did not you have to stay low, hidden, invisible?

Regardless if deported or escaped, how could you then go back to China? Even published a memoir there?

“Errors such as this are common. Even if she wrote to the journal editors to correct it, they woudn’t have done anything. A BA isn’t her terminal degree, and is about as meaningless to the article as whether or not she graduated from High School.”

Have you published any papers in IEEE journals? They have very high standards about accuracy. I just checked with someone who has published many papers in IEEE journals and was told authors are to provide their own bio information and they were sent the final proof copy to confirm. If you go to IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, you will see they have a submission template. According to this guide for preparing papers, “2.2 Final Stage For papers accepted for publication, it is essential that the electronic version of the manuscript and artwork match the hardcopy exactly! The quality and accuracy of the content of the electronic material submitted is crucial since the content is not recreated, but rather converted into the final published version.”

As for the typo “Suzou,” this only confirms that the bio was provided by herself as it is a very common feature for southerners like Ping Fu to spell “Suzhou” as “Suzou.” You can ask any Chinese southerners, and they will tell you how hard it is to distinguish whether there is an “h” or not in pinyin when it comes to pronunciation and write words down in pinyin.

While you asked why zfan spent so much time “attacking” Ping Fu, I would like to ask why you and Ping Fu would like to spend so much time arguing with faulty logic and twisted facts instead of providing any solid evidence. Your argument that “A BA isn’t her terminal degree, and is about as meaningless to the article as whether or not she graduated from High School” is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that anyone who has a Master’s degree can claim a Bachelor’s degree from Harvard when they submit their papers?

Regarding the evidence, could Ping Fu provide her BA certificate from Suzhou? Could Ping Fu provide her manuscript of the graduation thesis, could Ping Fu provide her Ph. D degree from Nanjing University? In BNB (page 224), Ping Fu said John Brant spent three days interviewing her and she told him details about her life stories in China. If you read John Brant’s article which is full of factual errors, you will also find he said Ping Fu had completed her doctorate. If Ping Fu didn’t tell him, where did he get this idea? Did Ping Fu benefit from the fake stories John Brant helped spread through that Inc. article he wrote in 2005? You should go read Savvy Marketing Group’s case study of Geomagic to find out. Nobody is here to destroy anyone. We would only want to know why Ping Fu told so many lies, such as saying she was less than a year from completing her MS degree at UNM, being kidnapped at the airport, Lane’s company being sold to AT&T, etc. in addition to those fabricated stories in China. Is this something you could not understand?

Hi Dick, this has been question to and problem of Ping Fu, why did you jump out? Now that I have a simple question, you said it is loaded (not simple) and you are not Ping Fu.

Ok, simple question: Was Ping Fu deported/exiled or she escaped (effectively a fugitive)

I assume you will disappear Dick, since we have been talking about Ping Fu, you claimed you are not her and so I won’t expect you to be here. If you prefer to stay and support her, you can logically analyse my question and give an answer. Let’s then go from there.

Dear Dick, “As for you, zfan: you’ve been aggressively attacking Ping Fu for quite some time now. You’ve made it apparent that you’re willing to say anything — whether true or not — in your quest to discredit her.”

(1) Please enlighten me which one I claimed is not true? I will apologize for it or correct it publicly on any forums I posted my comments! (2) In a debate, when you question the motives/manner of your opponents, instead of the question itself, that means you agree with your opponent’s point. That is a 101 for public debate. If you did not know this basic rule, please learn. (3) Ping’s BNB and her defenders are attacking American values/American Dreams. If you don’t want to defend American values, that’s your freedom. But don’t think truth seekers are as selfish as you and Ping.

Background Ms. Ping Fu, Ph.D. Co-Founded Geomagic, Inc. and serves as its Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Fu served as President of Geomagic, Inc. She served as Director of Visualization and Technical Program Manager of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, where she initiated and managed the NCSA Mosaic software project that led to Netscape and Internet Explorer. She has more than 20 years of software industry experience in database, … Education MS University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign BS University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign PhD NanJing University MA Suzhou University, China.

She can claim all these are someone else’s errors, but when these errors are pointed out, she has to correct them. If she is still a “nobody,” she can simply make no correction, but since she is now “somebody,” she has a duty to correct these errors.

Why are we here? Because to us, truth and integrity matter. If they do not matter to you, you can leave and save your precious time for something else. People of integrity do care about the truth. When Mr. Liangfu Wu wrote to Dr. Hisrich, pointing out in his book, Ping Fu was said to have completed a doctorate, Dr. Hisrich emailed back saying the 2013 new edition of his book does not contain this profile any more.

Let’s assume that you’re telling the truth. Then why are the “truth seekers” pursuing Ping Fu? Why not pursue Fang Shimin? He’s well known to have committed academic fraud. Or why not pursue the 83 billionaires that are members of Chinese parliment? Or, for that matter, why not pursue the liars who are our own congressmen?

If we look at your pursuit of Ping Fu, we find that, over the last 4 months, you’ve leveled dozens of charges at her that were not based on things she’d actually said or written. I suggest that it is your integrity that is in question.

I believe there is more to this “truth seeker” game you are playing than meets the eye.

Who do we choose to pursue is up to us, why do you care? Who are you to ask us? If you are not Ping Fu and not related to her, why do you care?

But I will answer you anyway.

Ping Fu is an American, Fang, Shimin is not; Ping Fu is poisoning the American society, Fang is not; Ping Fu is fabricating, distorting and exaggerating Chinese history, Fang is not; Ping Fu is profiting from her lies, Fang is not;

Enough for you?

Are you telling us that if there is a bigger fish to fry we should all ignore the rest? Are you saying while Top criminal is at large all other criminals should be set free?

Why are you so enthusiastic in defending a liar? Do you care to answer my simple question I repeated several times? That, by itself, is proven that she has been lying, all evidence are from her book and interview, and none of them can be excused as memory lost or error or anything, no excuse at all. Is that why you avoid the question? It seems you care about Ping Fu very much, why don’t you answer that question for her? Or ask her to answer it if you prefer.

Did you learned debate 101? If you agree or disagree my points, please give your opinion and reasoning. If you are unable to debate following the basic rules, then please practice and learn it. This discussion topic is about BNB and Ping’s credentials.

Ping Fu keeps telling us to read her book and we read her book and found she had lied. If you have read her book and disagree with our findings, you can present your argument, though I don’t think you can defend her claim that she was less than one year before completing her MS degree at UNM when she dropped out. Do truth seekers need to deal with Fang Shimin before we deal with Ping Fu? What kind of logic is this? We read BNB as Ping Fu suggested and we raised our questions during the past four months. What is strange is that for these past four months, Ping Fu remains silent on all the major issues we have questions about. If you cannot speak for her nor could you produce any solid evidence to show us, what’s the point of you wasting your precious time here?

My defense of Ping Fu is secondary to this: I’m pointing out weaknesses in the Truth Seekers’ arguments, to understand whether you (as a group, and individually) are actually interested in truth, or whether you’re pushing a hidden agenda.

I’m not spending much time on this, but I’m interested to understand why you and the others have become so obsessed, when the only things you’ve been able to prove so far are more easily explainable as unintentional errors than as intentional misrepresentations.

Silk Skirt – Paraphrasing the book, she was told by a government functionary to leave the country, and she inferred that staying would be a very bad idea.

I have a friend who was also once told to leave China. Did the government issue a formal deportation order? No. They didn’t need to. They proved to him in other ways that he would be unwise to ignore their orders. You could argue the fine points of language, but the end result was that he had to leave the country, and leave behind everything he had.

Similar things have happened to many Chinese. The stories are not hard to find. But if you have evidence that proves that the Chinese government doesn’t engage in such informal deportations, possibly you should provide it to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? They’d be pleased to get it, so they could close up their office in China, and spend their energy on other problems.

You seem to be arguing over semantics. Different people might use different words for the scenario that Ping Fu related, but for native English speakers, the terms “deport,” “exile” and “escape” are reasonably descriptive, particularly when used in the context of the book’s narrative. If you have a better term, let’s hear it.

It just seems to me that it is disingenuous to call Ping Fu a liar because you dislike a particular word that she or MeiMei Fox used to refer to a scenario that was elsewhere described in detail. So what if “deport” wasn’t exactly the right word? The context provided by the book’s narrative was sufficient to convey its connotation. There is no evidence of any attempt to mislead.

The problem with your agenda, to “stop her from lying any longer” is that it’s probably illegal. You can scream your opinions from the rafters, and you’re protected by the First Amendment. But when you try to coerce behavior or actions from Ping Fu, you’ve entered the realm of extortion, blackmail, and criminal intimidation.

She was supposed to be punished, but was given choice to either go to US or remote area in China. Is that reasonable? Would you give a kids who broke rules a choice of either grounded for a week or a week in Disneyland? You mentioned that you knew similar cases, the question is: is that punishment or reward? Why would China treat anti-government criminals that way? Isn’t it better human right record than the US? Is that what you are telling us?

I do not care if it is called deportation or exile, that is why I use deportation/exile, either way it is force to leave the country (Ping Fu used expel, same thing). But it is totally different from escape, which is the opposite of force to leave, it is choose to leave. Ping Fu gave two versions, contradict to each other, which one do you want us to believe?

Either one has problems as I stated before, also contradicts the fact that she could still go back to China and even publish a memoir. How could anyone believe she was deported or she escaped? Got it? Not semantics at all!

We call her a liar because we do not like some of her words? Are you kid or are you kidding? After so many rounds of conversation you are saying this? Are you serious?

Stopping a liar from lying is illegal? I do not worry about it, actually I’d welcome FBI come after me for that matter. My sole behavior is to expose lies, she called terrorists, that is not extortion or blackmail or criminal intimidation? Come on, are you trying to scare me? FBI has open line, call them. Please.

The smarter version of Van Van (at Amazon) Says, (1) “Because, if the FBI comes looking for you at your work, it’s going to be hard to explain to your boss.”

(2)” In the United States, there is a famous group that once relied upon anonymity. They wore white robes and hoods to hide their identities, and were called the Ku Klux Klan. They were known for lynching people they didn’t like. I’m not going to say this group is like the KKK. But you have hidden your identities, and either attacked and harassed people, or stood by silently while others did. I’ll also point out that some of the people you’ve been associating with here have “blithely and publicly conspired to violate U.S. criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 873), and the fact that some of you have moved your conversations to a private Google group is not an encouraging sign when it comes to the transparency of your motives. (3)”Zhaomin made his identity essentially public here, in his Amazon profile, and I respect his willingness to have his name associated with his actions.

Out of respect for Zhaomin, I’m going to speak elliptically: The organization for which he works happens to rely upon strategic technologies controlled by persons with interests in the issue being discussed in this forum, for a number of major initiatives in an area that is not too far distant from his areas of interest. I found this information in publicly available sources, with one three-word google search.

This, incidentally, is the reason why it’s important not to post private information here. I do not wish to say anything that would cause Zhaomin to face repercussions as a result of souring the relationship with a strategic supplier to his employer.”

As of April 28, 2013, Ping Fu continues to claim, in her Bloomberg/BusinessWeek executive profile, that she has Ph.D. degree in Chinese literature from Nanjing University, China. In fact, Ping Fu left China about 30 years ago, and did not complete any college degree in China.

Ping Fu also claims that she has Master of Arts degree in Chinese literature from Suzhou University, China, even though she did not complete her undergraduate studies from Suzhou University.

Regardless of the root cause of the errors in her educational credential, Ping Fu has an affirmative duty to promptly correct such errors.

According to Ping Fu’s supporter, Bloomberg BusinessWeek profiles have erroneous information for everyone she knows. Such generalization is a bold and controversial accusation against Bloomberg BusinessWeek, a reputable source of investment and business information relied by public shareholders of 3D Systems Corporation.

If Ping Fu is aware of factual errors in Charles Hull’s profile, she can submit concerns or complaints regarding ethical issues to DDD’s General Counsel. In its SEC filings, 3D Systems states that its Code of Conduct is designed to set high standards of business conduct and ethics, and that DDD investigate all concerns and complaints.

Dr. Charles W. Hull is a founder of 3D Systems Corp. and has been its Chief Technical Officer since April 1997 and Executive Vice President since May 2000. Mr. Hull served as an Interim Chief Executive Officer of 3D Systems Corp. since August 11, 2003 and was also a Member of the Office of the Chief Executive Officer. From August 1993 to April 1997, Mr. Hull served as the Chief Operating Officer and President of 3D Systems Corp. From March 1986 to October 1999 he served … as President of 3D Inc. He served as Vice President of UVP, Inc. from January 1980 to March 1986. Mr. Hull developed 3D Systems Corp.’s stereolithography technology while employed by UVP, Inc. He retired briefly from 3 D Systems Corp. during 1999, at which time he served as Vice Chairman and a member of the Board of Directors as well as a Consultant. Mr. Hull has been a Director of 3D Systems Corp. since 1993.

Dick Liddle, You said” The problem with your agenda, to “stop her from lying any longer” is that it’s probably illegal. You can scream your opinions from the rafters, and you’re protected by the First Amendment. But when you try to coerce behavior or actions from Ping Fu, you’ve entered the realm of extortion, blackmail, and criminal intimidation.”

It is really not first time that I read those kind of threatening . Van Harris wrote the similar words on Amazon. He then deleted all his comments.

Ping Pu lies publicly. She lied in her many interviews. She lied in her memoir Band, not break which she promoted around the world. So should she be crowned as a world class liar? She is still selling her fake memoir to abusing the trust from the readers worldwide. You know that She clearly said the BNB had been her personal life experience. Now she wants to correct her personal life experience so to publish another book. To confuse readers one more time? to earn some more black money?

Dick, who are you to tell people what to do here? Who are you to warn people of anything. Who does not know actions have consequences? Scare tactic was used by Ping Fu and the like long time ago, won’t work.

The timeline of her Chinese academic education is related to the timeline of her immigration stories. Throughout the years, regarding when she first arrived in the States, Ping Fu told Americans different stories with various arrival dates: (1) 1984 at age 25, (2) 1983 at age 25 and 23, (3) 1982, (4) 1981 at age 23, (5) 1980.

For example, on the USCIS official website, it states that Ping Fu “arrived in the United States in 1983 as a 23-year-old student” (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=651214f929685310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=34165c2af1f9e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD)

As the “Outstanding American by Choice Recipient” honored by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, why couldn’t Ping Fu (1958- ) remember when she first arrived in the U.S. or even how old was she? Isn’t that suspicious?

(2) How did James Gillies and Robert Cailiau (Oxford University Press, 2000) know that Ping Fu had “a Ph.D. in Chinese literature”? Checking the “Bibliography and Notes on Sources” section in Gillies & Caillau’s book “How the Web was Born” (for chapter 7, pp.236-263), they say: “Tim Berners-Lee, Mick Draper, Ping Fu, Joseph Hardin, Kevin Hughes, Steinar Kjaernsrod, Hakon Lie, Bob Metcalfe, Arthur Secret, and Dave Thompson all gave us interviews that were used in this chapter.” (see p.346)

Thus the statement that Ping Fu had “a Ph.D. in Chinese literature” (see p.237) was very likely said by Ping Fu herself during the interview. I assume that Ping Fu as an interviewee would have received page proofs from the authors. She would have then corrected any errors before the publication. This interview probably was dated to 1999, because Gillies & Caillau’s acknowledgements in the book was dated January, 2000.

As early as 2001, Ping Fu already specifically told media that she had a Ph.D. from Nanjing University (in Chinese Literature). Source: (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2001/06/18/story4.html?page=all) June 18, 2001 Triangle Business Journal by Lee Weisbecker, entitled “Quietly, revenue showers arrive”.

“The 30-plus worker company was founded in 1997 by President and Chief Executive Ping Fu, who earned a doctorate in Chinese literature from Nanjing University before refocusing her attention on supercomputing and imagining.”

Notice Ping Fu has never indicated “when” her Ph.D. degree was earned, if indeed there is one.

Has anyone verified with Nanjing University to contradict Ping Fu’s claims that she has a Ph.D. degree from Nanjing University?

Does Nanjing University have policies and procedures on verification of educational degrees?

In general, how do you verify a student’s educational records in China?

Ping Fu continues to claim, in her Bloomberg-BusinessWeek executive profile, that she has a doctorate degree from Nanjing University. However, Ping Fu has not provided any documentary evidence (e.g., diploma, doctoral dissertation, student transcript, etc.) to substantiate her claim that she has a doctorate degree.

Social responsibility is very important in the business world. It is understandable that Ping Fu has a strong desire to achieve success in Corporate America. Having a doctorate degree from a reputable university (e.g., Nanjing University in China) does give a business executive certain competitive advantages. However, integrity does matter. A business executive should not claim to have a doctorate degree when such claim is unsubstantiated.

Ping Fu chose not to truthfully disclose her educational credentials.

Independent verification with Nanjing University will be helpful to prove her false claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

zfan & your mob: Splitting hairs about whether formally deported or not is ridiculous. Being asked to leave one’s country is what it is.

What’s your real motive? Why are you obsessed with trying to prove someone lied who didn’t do so?

Ping has never claimed anything untrue about her credentials or qualifications. Though you don’t want to accept it, fame begets misinformation, and the internet has few filters.

You keep asking why your objections haven’t been widely publicized – here’s your answer: your arguments are weak because they’re untrue. Your methods are offensive and disrespectful. You don’t attract a lot of readers and are basically speaking to each other. You are going in circles because there is nowhere else to go.

There are civilized ways to point out mistakes. You guys are clearly attempting to destroy someone, not to respectfully request corrections.

P.S. Please refrain from spreading works, or translations of works, of which you are not the copyright holder.

Lyle and your mob, including Van Harris, you’d better make sure that Ping Fu have told truth to you. Or you will bear great shame when Ping Fu one day, acknowledges that she lied and lied intentionally. There are many forms filled in with her own fingers. So she has to give an explanation to some made-up educations, and other things.

Lely, who are you? Why all the media and Ping Fu herself are saying it was deportation or exile or expel, but you are telling us that it was just ask to leave? Are you Ping Fu? If not, how can you tell what it was? Are you telling us so far all others, including us, who claimed it was deportation have been splitting hair?!!! Do you know what you are saying?

Forget about the motivation, is she telling the truth or not? Don’t change topic!

So you are saying Ping Fu has a PhD degree? Or you are saying she never claimed that? We only want to follow her profile and want to get to see the paper.

What civil way are you expecting? Is calling names, terrorists, gangs, mobs… civil way? Is listing facts with logical analysis none civil? Where are you from?

Stop spreading translated works because we do not have copyright? Or you are afraid of those words been known to Americans? When Ping Fu obtains profit from translated American author’s works, did you say anything at all?

Why would she be asked to leave? Because she did something wrong? If so, why send her to US? Why send a kid to Disneyland when the kid needs to be disciplined? You think all of us are moron except you and Ping Fu?

Lyle, so you come here to tell us that you have read the book and you believed that Ping Fu had told truth? How can you tell that Ping Fu has told the truth if you don’t know Ping Fu? or without any fact checking?

Lyle, have you been told lately that Ping Fu’s memior Bend ,not Break was a fabricated book? How can you get truth from an experienced world class liar? You choose to believe her. Bu people with wisdom seek truth.

Just a quick answer to Lyle: I mentioned here on Forbes, multiple places: very first paragraph of BnB: Ping Fu said she was given a choice of being expelled or sent to a remote plate in China. Go read it if you don’t believe me. She said that! Plus: all other mentioning of the deportation, exile, where do you think those terms are from? IF NOT from Ping Fu, from where?!!! She also mentioned in one interview that she escaped, so she did not actually know if she was “asked to leave” or “escaped”?

Page 5-9: The kidnapping never happened according to the Albuquerque Police Department.

Page 25 “Rape of Nanjing Memorial Day falls on May 30, my birthday.” Rape of Nanjing Memorial Day is December 13th.

Page 44: Even Ping Fu herself already admitted this incident of a teacher being torn apart by four horses could be the result of her nightmare.

Page 55 Being an F-1 student, working off-campus was a violation of the federal regulation, and also by saying “I could barely afford UNM’s out-of-state tuition” suggests she turned in a fraudulent financial affidavit when she applied for the visa to come to the U.S. because she must provide proof of funding for one year’s tuition plus living expenses to the U.S. Consulate.

Pages 60-61 Did Sylvester Stallone actually grab her rear-end and did she actually slap him on the cheek? If she could say John Wayne (died in 1979) “came to our restaurant,” you may wonder whether she actually dreamed up the whole incident.

Pages 62-63 It would be hard to believe that at the ripe age of 25, she did not know the notation for fraction when she had an engineer professor father and an accountant mother.

Page 66 “Less than one year away from completing my master’s degree in computer science, I dropped out of the University of New Mexico.” According to the information from UNM, she was never enrolled as a graduate student there.

Page 67 It is illegal to work for Lane’s company as a F-1 student, especially when she was not even enrolled in school.

Page 68 It was hard to believe any full time student could “be earning close to eighty thousand dollars a year.”

Page 70 Lane Sharman confirmed that he did not sell his company to AT&T or anyone else.

Pages 66-71 There was no mention of her first short-lived marriage with Richard through whom she got her green card before divorcing him.

Page 76 Her gang-rape incident. “One of the boys kicked me so hard that I flew into the air and landed on another boy’s steel-tipped worker’s boots. I heard a crack like a tree branch splitting and felt a sharp pain in my tailbone.” If you can believe you can kick a ten-year-old child and send her flying into the air, you may be a good reader for this book.

Page 98 “One More Cup of Coffee” that my favorite teacher had played many times in class during college – and it was the only English-language song that I had carried with me in my head from China to America.” Didn’t she say she only knew three English words when she came to America?

Pages 114-116 She must be a girl of super strength to be able to carry two 7-year-old girls on her back and crawled one hundred meters while she herself was only 11 years old.

Page 189 If one one-thousandth of the gold nugget was seventy yuan, her grandfather would have carried 70,000 yuan cash in his pocket when he bought it from that blind musician.

Page 231 Ping Fu already admitted that she was not the one among those students accepted by college in 1977. To claim “out of every ten thousand applicants, only one was accepted to a university” would mean 33% of the population sat for the exam.

Page 249 “I had wanted to major in aerospace engineering, but the government had decided that I would study literature.” College applicants who wanted to major in science and college applicants who wanted to study liberal arts took two different sets of exams at that time in China. It simply meant she did not take the exam for science major, besides, if she did not even know what fraction notation looks like at 25, she would have failed the science exam even if she had taken it.

Indeed I have followed up and confirmed to my satisfaction that the book is authentic and sincere.

Maybe you missed the part where people who knew Lance claimed for years that he was lying. Nobody close to Ping has made any such claim. On the contrary, those who bother to engage with you have the utmost respect and hold her in high regard.

to Lely: “Maybe you missed the part where people who knew Lance claimed for years that he was lying. Nobody close to Ping has made any such claim. On the contrary, those who bother to engage with you have the utmost respect and hold her in high regard.”

1. None of them came out to support her notion anymore? Why her supporters are people like you who do not claim to have known her but “third party” who came for “fairness”? 2. Who among those close to her knew about China and CR? 3. Who close to her came to state with evidence that the claims by critics are false? 4. You said you went back verified (not exact word you use), what did you verify with what evidence that her claims are authentic?

Do you think those simple notion will convince innocent Americans that the critics are wrong? The critics came with facts, show us yours!

Lyle, how many Ping Fu’s old friends keep quiet now? People with brain do think and rethink about this matter.

If a black person went to Iraq to blame American’s human right situation by saying that white people daily dropped bombs into black people’s house, many Iraqis might believe it. Until another black person went to 1raq and found out and tell people that the other lied. In this case, you and Ping Fu’s circle were Iraqis. Ping Fu was that first black person. When Ping Fu’s lies were exposed, Ping Fu then said to the second black person “I lied? Do you mean that white people have always treated black people nicely?” —this is the evil trick that Ping Fu is using and there are many ignorant mind believe it. Get real, Lyle.

What is wrong with you, H Chen? All marriages that result in green cards are not shams. There is nothing to support your claim it was a sham marriage. You p r e s u m e.

You also presume that things you don’t know the answer to, documents you are not in possession of, don’t exit. You don’t know what you’re talking about and I am not going to engage in your ill-guided, paranoid, accusatory, cruel presumptions anymore.

Ping Fu’s first marriage was a sham and she forgot to divorce after getting her green card.

There is no mentioning of her first marriage in both of her memoirs. Both her Chinese memor in 1996 and this Bend not Break. There is no evidence Ping Fu and Richard ever lived together. Ping Fu got rid of Richard Lynn right after she got her green card.

P95 “I was almost thirty years old and had no personal life. It had been more than 5 years since I’d landed in the United States, yet I still wondered, what was an American life exactly? I had much to learn and to experience if I wanted to make this country my home” P96 “what finally transformed my personal life was not a class I took or a book I read. It was something totally unplanned and unrelated to these well-intentioned, purposeful efforts to make myself “fit in”: a romance.”

Since PIng Fu admitted her first marriage, to “an American”, was from 1986 to 1989. An easy math told us when she was almost 30, she was still married to this (most likely native born) American, yet she decided she ‘had no personal life” and needed a romance with an Austria born, German educated computer scientist to help her “fit in”. What a joke!

When she developed some love affection with Dr. H, received a love letter from H, she was feeling trouble for her affection on a married man, all that happened in the winter of 1988, when she was still married with Richard. By the autumn of 1989 she was already in hot love with Prof H.

In the 2005 Inc. article, which John Brant wrote after interviewing Ping Fu for three days, Ping Fu was said to feel frozen inside, had no intimate friends and allowed no man to get close to her before she met Dr. H. In her Chinese memoir, she said she was an old spinster at the age of 30. The years in questions were the years she was married to Richard. Do you call this a true marriage based on love?

The rescue story in Cleveland reminds me of Ping Fu’s first three days in the States. I wonder how Ping and Meimei Fox react to this news and how their publisher and supporters explain ping’s bizarre kidnapping story to the public.

Those morphing “objective” third party Ping Fu defenders share the following common features, making you wonder if they are from the same person or party:

1. Call for private conversation.

We do not know why there is the need, but as long as Ping Fu publicly tells her lies, private conversation makes no sense at all. We won’t follow.

2. Call for fairness: Why scrutinize Ping Fu but no others?

She has been the biggest lier in terms of time, multitude and magnitude, 3 dimensional, truly drama queen of 3D. The lying is still going on, more and more Americans are misled by the lies with the support of politically correct media. We have to stop it. Plus, as long as she IS still lying, it is not unfair at all to stop her.

3. Call for civil conversation

. With no specificity as evidence, this “objective” party constantly accuses the critics of uncivil conversation, while totally ignores the fact that Ping Fu and her cohorts have been calling critics whatever dirty name they came up with, including hermaphrodite and terrorist. So much for the “objectivity”!

4. Accuse the critics of attacking with slogans only

That is their wish, it is not going to happen, while the accusation is hollow, full of name calling and slogans, the critics are always equipped with facts, evidences, logical analysis, things they cannot deny.

5. Question the motivation of the critics

Those morphing agents ask why the critics are so dedicated, devote so much time and energy to this matter. The motivation is none of their business, they cannot or will not believe the sole motivation is to restore American value: integrity, honesty, play by the rule. Regardless, if the critics are right, Ping Fu should stop, if the critics are wrong, the critics should stop, motivation is irrelevant.

6. All speak on behalf of Ping Fu

They all claim to have no connection with Ping Fu, do not even know her, while at the same time keep speaking as if they are representing Ping Fu. Some even said that all people close to Ping Fu trusted her. How could they know if they do not know Ping Fu or if they are not Ping Fu herself?

7. Evasive maneuver

Hardly answer or follow up questions, always change topic, mess up logic / concept or simply shy away. While the critics are open for corrections and improvements, there is hardly any direct conversation regarding any fact-check or feedback. Silence has been the best defense from Ping Fu, she already learned covering lies with lies backfires easily. If they believe they or Ping Fu are right / correct, why not fight back with facts?

6. Morphing IDs

When everything else fails, the old skin is shed and a new identity emerges. Best way to start over without burden of past failure and responsibility.

So far, these objective IDs still dare not to confront the majority of critics who post at Amazon forum, they have no interests of talking to those critics because they knew what the truth is, their interest is to spread the words in media where most general American public visit, their goal is to cover up lies with lies and continue the lies.

BNB hardcover in Amazon Best Sellers Rank The rank is a gauge of the public opinion about this BNB controversy between a bunch of grass-root truth seekers and the author Ping/her team. Amazon so far has listed over 41 millions of books since the beginning of life.

Total May sales (so far):10 Total April sales:79 Total March sales: 100 Total Feb sales: 191 Total Jan Sales: 595

Not long time ago, people believed that the earth was the center of the universe, then the sun became the center, then the milky way came into the picture, in the last century people started to realize that our milky way is among “countless” galaxies, the number becomes astronomical.

If you think the mass of those galaxies is mind boggling, think again. In the past decade, scientists realized that the matter we see in our universe is just a fraction of what is out there, about 5%, the rest, the 95% is something called dark energy (68%) and dark matter (27%), stuff that we have no idea of, totally.

It does not stop there.

That is about our universe. There are other universes out there, collectively called multiverse, and the number is beyond description.

You see, the more we know, the more we know what we don’t know.

The experience of human being is experience of endless learning, the only thing that can stop us is ourselves.

When you believe you have learnt enough, when you believe you outsmart others, when you refuse to learn, you will soon be left behind.

It is called arrogance, and arrogance will lead to ignorance.

I am sure no one will want to be both arrogance and ignorance.

Now let me ask you: how much do you know about China and Cultural Revolution? How much do you know what is enough to give you the ability to judge if BnB is full of fabrication or not. If you’ve realized that you do not know enough, should you blindly trust the printed words or try to learn more, should not you wonder why there are so many critics, given this is not the first and only book talking about the dark side of Chinese history and the atrocity during Cultural Revolution? Should not you open you mind and listen to critics calmly? After all, we all have common sense, basic knowledge of laws of physics and ability of logical analysis, when basic human decency, integrity and honesty is in question, shouldn’t you want to find out the truth behind the controversy?

1. Who are you? A bunch of gross-root “netizens”, consisting of mostly Chinese Americans (Citizens or Permanent residents) who don’t know each other before this BNB controversy.

2. What are you fighting for (or against)? (1) For – American Dream should be achieved via Integrity, honesty and “play by the rule” (2) Against — Mainstream media’s bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance (sometimes racism) towards American Minorities, especially Chinese Americans. (3) For — Freedom of Speech, in respect to Ping and cohorts’ effort to suppress truth seekers voice with personal threats, personal attacks, censorship… publicly and privately.

The rescue story in Cleveland reminds me of Ping Fu’s first three days in the States. I wonder how Ping and Meimei Fox react to this news and how their publisher and supporters explain ping’s bizarre kidnapping story to the public if they raise the questions about it.

“Don’t listen to my interviews on radios or watch them online. Forget about those stories coming out from my own mouth in my previous videos. Just read my book! Oh yes, don’t read those inconsistencies in my book, those are all publishing errors. And don’t read the horrible killing, it was just my trauma, my nightmare. I thought I saw it but I didn’t. Forget about my thesis of Infanticide on People’s Daily in 1981 and the consequent UN sanction against China. My paper wasn’t published and I didn’t know the sanction wasn’t true. I just heard about it and then immediately I thought I did it. Yeah, there is a time gap. Let me go back to check. Hey Meimei, what happened to me between 1982-1984? “

As a regular Forbes reader I learnt about the summit and would like to get an answer to my question regarding the participant Ping Fu, CSO of 3D system.

I assume Forbes invited PIng Fu to be one of the participants.

I am sure you all are aware of the ongoing critics of Ping Fu’s personal experience depicted in her memoir: Bend, Not Break and her numerous interviews. Thanks to Forbes to be one of the few media to allow full, open discussion, general public get to know more and more about the multitude and magnitude of abnormalities in Ping Fu’s story that defies history, logic and reality, her totally unheard “real experiences” outraged many Americans. Since the discussion has been going on in your Forbes backyard for several months already, you must have known enough of it. It makes me wonder why your summit is still inviting her as participant and speaker. You do not care about her integrity or credibility or you trust her 100%?

I assume you do care about participants’ integrity and credibility.

Then here is my question:

In her book Bend, Not Break, in the very first paragraph, she described her departure to the US:

“When I was twenty-five years old, the Chinese government quietly expelled me. I was terrified to leave my homeland. But the alternative was exile to a remote place in China-or worse.”

This is the beginning of her rags to riches story, this is in the very first paragraph of her memoir, I believe this is very important part of her life, it should be rock solid and clear.

You do not have to know much about China or Cultural Revolution. But you must have the same question as I have:

If school won’t discipline a student by sending the student to Disneyland, why would a government, any government, punish its citizen by sending the citizen to a much more developed country? Why expel or deport its own citizen to another country? Why two opposite options were given?

Does it make sense to you at all? Don’t you question the authenticity of the claim? Don’t you question the credibility of the person?

That is only one of hundreds of literally “incredible” notions, incidents and events.

Ping Fu has profiles in multiple places, each has experiences which do not belong to her or degrees she never earned. With her credibility obviously in question, why would she be invited as a participant in the summit?

She claims to have helped create the internet, nurtured the invention of internet browser, with her as the only source of those claims, why would you provide her a platform to continue the lies.

While you have your right to invite her, Forbes readers deserve to know the reason.

I don’t personally know Ping Fu so I don’t have anything for or against her. I came to know such a person’s existence after she published her second memoir in English in December 2012, called “Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds”. By the way, if you are so interested in her English memoir, you should also get hold of her first memoir written in Chinese, “Drifting Bottle: Traveling in America”, published by Hubei Youth Publishing House, 湖北少年儿童出版社 1996) in China in January, 1996. Both of her memoirs when putting together side by side, one can’t imagine the life told in both memoirs happened to the very same person of totally different childhood life as there are so many contradictions, fabrications, and exaggerations between the two memoirs written by the same person, Ping Fu. By the way, her own parents (father a professor, mother an accountant) helped her to edit her first memoir. What this means is that her first memoir is more believable and it was written more than 10 years ago which was closer to her childhood. So her childhood memory then should be more accurate than what her childhood memory is today when she published her second memoir in 2012.

Has anyone wondered why Ping Fu is the only person who claimed to have such special personal experience during Cultural Revolution when no other Chinese Americans, who grew up from the same time period, had? Yes, it is true that no one person’s life experience is the same as the others, but to have such extraordinary personal experiences, almost at every step of her life she had something extremely different from the others, and especially when her experience sounds so dramatic, and/or theatrical, does anyone ever wonder the validity of her life stories is the life she has been telling people?

China has opened its door for quite some time now and because of this, a lot of young students from China came to the United States to pursue higher education, either for graduate degrees or Ph.D. degrees in various fields. There are a lot more interaction between these people and American born Americans. Chinese Americans melt or mingle themselves in almost all fields, such as technologies, science, medical, social science, history, music, etc., did anyone else, Americans, born and grew up in the United States, ever hear from their Chinese American friends who had such experiences, without going to schools for 10 years from age 8 for an urban girl who grew up in a university environment?

Questionable Fact: Lane Sharman’s Romantic Interest in Fu Ping The Original Story: In her earlier auto-biography Drifting Bottle, Fu Ping told a slightly different version of her relationship with her first employer, Lane Sharman. She affectionately called him “Lan(À¶)” in Chinese, meaning “blue.” The chapter is titled “Blue Feeling, Blue Dream”.

When they first met, Fu Ping commented that Lane’s eyes are “blue like the ocean water.” (P. 61) After her job interview at Lane’s office the next day, Lane made a point to tell her, “I am a married man.” (P. 63) They enjoyed frequent lunch dates by the seaside. (P. 70)

The Debunking: These material, which clearly indicated a romantic interest between Lane Sharman and Fu Ping, did not show up in Bend, Not Break, which by itself is rather curious.

Sexual harassment at work place had not yet become a hot issue in 1986. In a small company like Lane Sharman’s, it’s hard to say what could be going on. But a male boss telling a female job candidate his marriage status seems to be out of line regardless.

What is more shocking is, of course, this “romance” happened around the exact same time that Fu Ping entered a secret marriage, giving more credence that the marriage was probably a sham.

Lyle Li, Nancy Li, Felix Li, Jtjr Li, Tim Li, JP Chen Li, Van Harris Li, xx Li (I believe that those people made Lyle Li use “we”), you are all lying to yourself. Ping Fu has free speech here in US. She can freely criticize Chinese Government. Did she do it? She has her outsourcing in China and she was well loved by Deng Xiao Ping who was responsible for June 4th massacre. She does not need to be bravery to do anything because her spirit is bamboo—follow the wind of anything beneficial to her. You made Ping Fu look worse by making more lies to defend her. Ping Fu fabricated her life story in inc interview and to publish BNB for her selling company, for gain money, fame, and political power. A world class liar, shameless!!! Lis, you made fools of yourselves.

I don’t know who the others are you refer to. I refer to the collective “We”. You fabricated a collaboration with people I don’t know, and you have no basis for these vile accusations about the author.

The Original Story: On Pages 62-63 of Bend, Not Break, Fu Ping recalls that she did not know the concept of fractions while attending a college math class:

Calculus class was mandatory. I could follow most subjects if professors taught them from the beginning, but in this course, a great deal of mathematical knowledge was presumed. I had learned some math in an unstructured way throughout the years — from my older siblings in Shanghai, Nanjing Mother, older children at NUAA, counting money to manage my household, and doing calculations while working at factories during my teenage years. But when the professor put fractions on the chalkboard, I stared blankly at the strange notation, which I had not seen before. I stopped him after class. … I placed my index finger on a fraction. “That. What does it mean when you put one number, then a slash, then another number under it?”

“You don’t know fractions?” he asked, squinting his eyes at me. … I went to the city library and started thumbing through math textbooks. I didn’t find fractions in the high school math book, nor did I find them in the middle school texts. Finally I found them in the second-grade math textbook. Even high school math was too advanced for me. I ended up checking out the entire math curriculum from first grade on. I knew how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. But other than that, some basic concepts such as fractions, long division, square roots, and logarithms were unfamiliar to me. In her earlier book Drifting Bottle, Fu Ping also described her difficulty with math in a Partial Differentiation Equations class. However, she did not specify the problem was with fractions.

The Changing Story: In an interview on the John Batchelor Show on March 19, 2013, Fu Ping appeared to try to modify and justify her story:

As to computer science, I wrote this thing about fractions, it wasn’t like I didn’t know anything, I was trying to show the knowledge gap. When you don’t have a formal education, you cannot pick up those things. It’s just pieces here and there. I was working in a factory. I study from workers and farmers. I actually picked up some academic information here and there. What I found when I came to United States is that I have a lot of knowledge gap. Some thing everybody thinks they know but I didn’t. Then there are some things I just know. Sometimes I feel I am quite smart, I feel like I am the most stupid person in the room because I didn’t know what people are talking about. This fraction is just one example of it even though I may know some more advanced math. It is this particular thing that 3 over 5 that I didn’t know. I just didn’t study it because I wasn’t in school in the 2nd or 3rd grades. So I skipped over those knowledge and then later it catch up on you. The Debunking: Before you should ask, math textbooks in Chinese language use the same algebraic symbols as in the west: fractions are often represented by the number-slash-number notation. Fu Ping clearly indicated that her trouble was not with the notations but the whole concept of fractions, so much so that she had to go back to second-grade textbooks to “discover” it.

In 1977, when the college entrance exam was reinstated in China, Fu Ping made a big deal on how hard she studied to pass those exams. As a matter of fact, she had taken the exams twice, in 1977 and 1978, respectively. So she had plenty of time to study. Although she had chosen to take the “liberal arts” exams, it also included a mandatory math exam, which was only slightly less advanced compared to the same math exam on the “science and engineering” side.

For at least a year of preparing for exams including math, she wants us to believe that she had never come across fractions?

I understand that “Editorial integrity is important” to you, that you are “in a position to assess the factuality of some of the things that Ping Fu has written”, and that the purpose of your story “was to discuss how her life experience led her to technological innovations with a humanist purpose.” So have you done some fact checking on her life experience to validate the life experience she claimed to have are the life experience she truly had, and the academic credentials she claimed on her profile on Bloomberg BusinessWeek are the academic credentials she worked hard to earn and entitled to through her life experience?

As of today, 5/13/2013, she still claims to have earned the following degrees on Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile. It is funny to see her recent degree addition updated on May 9, 2013 to her profile switching from 3rd degree listed or 5th degree listed (Bachelor’s Degree from University of California , San Diego ). This may be the result of Forbes hosting the same information on different servers, but this is a minor: MS University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign BS University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign PhD NanJing University MA Suzhou University Bachelor’s Degree University of California – San Diego

As you know, forging academic credentials should not be taken lightly in America . Scott Thompson of ex Yahoo CEO was forced to step down because he claimed the degree he didn’t earn on his resume, and Marilee Jones of MIT Dean also stepped down due to false claims for the degrees she didn’t earn after 28 years of lying. Ping Fu should follow suit in that she should have the courage to show the general public her real academic credentials, and why she has been giving the false information on her credentials, and/or ignoring the faulty information on her credentials everywhere.

A closer examination of Ping Fu’s claimed academic credentials: MA Suzhou University , China . Suzhou University Letter confirmed that Ping Fu withdrew from its school on March 16, 1982 without getting a graduation diploma and a degree certificate. Then when and where did she obtain her MA from Suzhou University when she did not even get a BA, or any degree from Suzhou University ?

PhD NanJing University With the withdraw of school in the Spring, 1982, it is impossible for her to choose any research topic for her school thesis on China’s one-child policy in the Fall of 1982 which led to her deportation by China to US. Once again, Suzhou University has confirmed that she formally withdrew from its university on March 16, 1982. Then how, when and where did she obtain her PhD from NanJing University as we know anyone who was deported by his/her own country will not be able to go back to his/her homeland?

BS University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign According to Ping Fu, she graduated with a BS degree from University of California , San Diego . If that’s the case, how and why does her profile shown on Bloomberg BusinessWeek indicate she has BS from University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign? Where exactly did she obtain her BS degree? According to ChubbyBrain, “She holds graduate and post-graduate degrees in computer science and Chinese literature, and is an adjunct professor at Duke University . Inquiries made to various departments at Duke University confirmed that they didn’t have anyone by the name of Ping Fu as an adjunct professor at Duke University .

You could contact these universities yourself to find out the real degrees she earned and whether she was an adjunct professor at Duke University . That should not be too difficult for you to do as all contact information from the universities she attended are public knowledge and anyone could contact the universities. It has almost been 4 months since your original article, with the mountains of evidence unfolding, are you planning to write an updated report on this controversy if editorial integrity is important to you?

None of Pings claims are without merit. This is not a difficult concept: we (the collective we, including you) are not accountable for things published about us, especially those propagated on the internet. There is no official letter from any university that disproves anything Ping has stated.

The Original Story: On Page 95 of Bend, Not Break, Fu Ping felt sorry for herself after starting her first professional job at Bell Labs in 1988:

I was almost thirty years old and had no personal life. It had been more than five years since I’d landed in the United States, yet I still wondered, What was an American life exactly? The Earlier Story: From Pages 37 to 59 of her earlier autobiography Drifting Bottle, Fu Ping used an entire chapter detailing her love story while she was a student at University of New Mexico. She was torn between a Chinese Kaili (凯利) and an American Richard (理查德) and ended up leaving them both when she left Albuquerque for San Diego.

The Changed Story: After questions were raised on how quickly she had obtained her green card, Fu Ping disclosed a secret to Didi Kirsten Tatlow of International Herald Tribune:

In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, she said, apparently for the first time, the reason she kept quiet was she was trying to protect her first husband, an American, whom she does not mention in her memoir. The marriage took place while she was living in California, she said.

“I had a first marriage and that’s how I got my green card,” she said by telephone. She married on Sept. 1, 1986 and divorced three years later. The Debunking: It’s not clear why Fu Ping felt the need to protect her first husband, who appeared to have passed away by the time she wrote the book.

The said marriage has since been confirmed, although it was doubtful if she was living in California at the time of marriage since she was still using a New Mexico address.

Bend, Not Break is supposed to be a book of the life struggle of an immigrant who achieved the American dream. As any immigrants knew, one of the hardest obstacles in this journey is to secure the residency. Fu Ping chose not to include this critical information in this book, leading to an obvious suspicion: was this marriage a green card fraud?

Remember, we are talking about an individual who had been honored by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as one of Outstanding Americans by Choice.

It was also not clear whether the Richar Lynn Ewald was the same “Richard” in Drifting Bottle. But it certainly does not appear that she had had no personal life in the five years since she landed in the US.

“None of Pings claims are without merit.” —- this is lying. You can read www.debunkingbendnotbreak.com for details.

“This is not a difficult concept: we (the collective we, including you) are not accountable for things published about us, especially those propagated on the internet. ” —- but you have the responsibility to correct them. Ping Fu has gone tooo far in her own words

“ There is no official letter from any university that disproves anything Ping has stated.”—-

1. Why so many and so often? It’s very high frequency 2. Why all positive? Mistakes should go both way 3. Why no correction?

Here are example of ultimate level of lying (also on Amazon, I wonder why you did not copy this one over)

[examples are made up, don't try to fit in]

Method 1: (mislead people) Statement: I came to the US in early 1990s to pursue a PhD degree in Computer Science, after graduation in 1995 I left the field and devoted all of my time and effort to world peace… Question: That was dot com time, with a PhD in CS you could earn big money, what makes you change your field and ….. Answer: Money is never what I wanted, never was, never is, never will be…. Done! You got the impression that I earned a PhD degree in Computer Science though I actually graduated with a MS in another field. Method 2: (never correct self spread rumor) Q: I heard that you were imprisoned for a decade simply because you questioned the authority of your government, and were tortured on daily basis before you finally escaped to US, how did you do it. A: It was nothing, brave and endurance is my middle name….. I was never in prison, not my problem if you get that idea. Method 3: (embed statement in question) I’ve been constantly asked: As the inventor of quantum computer, thin air mass production and patent owner of three cancer treatment drugs, how do you feel that so far you are not nominated for the Nobel Prise? Well, I never even dreamed of getting any prises, I love what I do and I love being loved The truth is I only invented myself, but why would I tell you. That is the ultimate level: Lie without lying.

silkskirt says: Just got my crawlbot result, Li and Ping Fu share the same IP. OMG, this really tells something. Kiss a good bye and then morph to another ID? Everywhere you go, any ID you use will reveal yourself because of what you say.

1. June 11, 2013, Suzhou University 1st published their statement on deceptive behavior of Ping Fu; 2. June 14, 2013, Suzhou University published 2nd official statement on deceptive behavior of Ping Fu indicating their readiness to have an open dialog with Ping Fu; 3. June 20, 2013, Suzhou University had press conference on the same issue indicating its willingness to wait for Ping Fu’s response before taking any legal actions; 4. June 29, 2013, Ping Fu attended ALA Conference 2013 anyway ignoring Suzhou University’s message to her and gave a speech anyway there using her fake life story; 5. July 1, 2013, South China Morning Post interviewed Ping Fu in which she expressed her willingness to apologize to Suzhou University; 6. July 2, 2013, Ping Fu “published” Joe Nocera’s Cultural Revolution Vigilantes on her Google+ site; 7. July 21, 2013, Suzhou University published its 3rd statement along with evidence; i) Ping Fu’s student registration card which she filled out with her own handwriting indicating that a) She joined Chinese Communist Youth League in April, 1973; b) Ping Fu graduated from Nanjing Guanghuamen High School in 1976; c) Ping Fu served as monitor of her class; ii) The undergraduate program of Chinese Language and Literature was Ping Fu’s first choice; iii) Ping Fu was admitted to the Department of Chinese Language and Literature of Jiangsu Teachers’ College in September, 1978 (Jiangsu Teachers’ College was a formal name for Suzhou University); iv) Ping Fu withdrew from Suzhou University on March 16, 1982; 8. Mid July, 2013, the response from FOIA request for grant #9200301 includes Ping Fu’s resume. On her resume submitted to apply for the federal grants, she had indicate that i) She earned a BA degree in Chinese Literature from Suzhou University in March, 1982 when in fact, she withdrew from Suzhou University on March 16, 1982 (confirmed by Suzhou University); ii) She was a lecturer at Nanjing Aeronautical Institute, China (1982 – 1983), during which time she claimed that she was doing her infanticide research and was arrested as written in her Bend, Not Break; iii) She also published a book called “Two minute stories”, Hebei, China, isbn 7-5353-0761-2, 1988, of which she claimed it was her own publication whereas in fact it was only translation of Mary Parsley’s children’s book;

Using forged resume to gain federal grants is a serious matter. It hurts taxpayers like you and me, more importantly; it hurts America as a whole. Copyright infringement should not be taken lightly either. Do we know what credentials she used to get onto the President’s advisory board? Should the President of the United States be advised by such person with issues of integrity and honesty?

With the mountain of evidence, should mainstream media still keep silence?

Most of the hundreds of comments here are attacks from members of a group of Chinese Americans who, for the last 6 months, have banded together in a relentless and coordinated cyber-bullying campaign against Ping Fu.

Some individual members of this group have posted thousands of messages disparaging Ping Fu in discussion forums worldwide web. Many have participated in mailing campaigns, blanketing organizations with which Ping Fu works (including even the White House) with letters full of reprehensible claims.

Collectively, they’ve spent thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours trying to ruin Ping Fu. In the process, they have attacked anyone who has disagreed with them–even some of the most respected journalists in the world.

What Ping Fu wrote was a memoir, not a history of China. The very first words in her book were a disclaimer that these were only her memories. Still, the book has held up well: Ping Fu has corrected things that she remembered wrong (some going back to when she was 8 years old), but, overall, the major elements of her story have been proven to be true. And there’s no evidence that she meant to deceive anyone. Yet, when she has corrected errors, these attackers pounce upon her, claiming that she intentionally lied. When she has described the same experience more than once, to different interviewers, they’ve dissected every word of hers, claiming to find inconsistencies and shameful lies where there are none.

The real question is not why there might be some errors in a person’s memoir. It is why this group, made up primarily of Chinese Americans, would join together in a vicious and extended cyber-bullying campaign against a person who was just telling her own life story? Why would they conspire together (even using secret closed forums) to destroy Ping Fu’s career and business relationships?

So far, the only answer they’ve been able to give is the same one they started with, back in January: that they “don’t like liars.” Yet why is Ping Fu the only person that this mob is attacking? And how have they justified the many lies they themselves have told in their quest to impugn Ping Fu?

The scale, duration, coordination, and ferociousness of this attack belies the simplistic justification they claim. This is a very nasty business.

Which major elements of her story have been proven true? 1. Her deportation, imprisonment, thesis on infanticide, finger-checking for menstrual blood? 2. Her teacher being quartered by horses? 3. Sun Yat-sen’s adoption of her grandfather? 4. Red Maple Society incident? 5. Kidnapping at the airport? 6. AT &T acquisition of Lane Sharman’s company? 7. Her graduate studies at University of New Mexico? 8. Information about Geomagic? All the above claims have either been retracted/corrected by Ping Fu or proven fake by relevant authorities through FOIA requests or inquiries. The list can go on and on. I don’t like liars, do you? If Ping Fu has committed academic fraud, copyright infringement, fabricated her work experiences in her resume submitted to the NSF for grant application, these are not minor lies, but downright fraud!

“Using forged resume to gain federal grants is a serious matter. It hurts taxpayers like you and me, more importantly; it hurts America as a whole. Copyright infringement should not be taken lightly either. Do we know what credentials she used to get onto the President’s advisory board? Should the President of the United States be advised by such person with issues of integrity and honesty?” Jim

Where are your answers with bulletproof evidence? We have been “spent thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours” waiting for them. Could you care to present them here? Please be advised that all Ping Fu supporters have had a hard time defending Ping Fu because Ping Fu keeps changing her stories. You need to better coordinate with Ping Fu to come up with your “bulletproof” evidence.

Was Ping fu a Red Guard or not? In her interviews and her book, she seemed to be the victim of the Red Guards. But the photo she provided to the media clearly shows that herself was a Red Guard (link: http://s3.t.itc.cn/mblog/pic/20132_16_17/m_p3dq08723103818196.png)

I haven’t got the time to peruse Ping Fu’s two more recent resumes yet, but a quick glance at her work experience shows something very interesting.

Everyone who has read her memoir should remember Ping Fu bragged about how she was making close to $80,000 annually working part-time for Lane Sharman while being a full-time student at UCSD. And we know she and Lane met on a beach in San Diego in the summer of 1986. Comparing the three resumes at hand, I was amazed at her audacity to tell lies. Apparently she was milking this somewhat illegal work experience to the last drop the same way as she did to her illegal translation of Mary Parsley’s children’s book.

In her three resumes, the same work experience was mentioned, but the duration was lengthened each time:

So the length of her work experience at Lane’s company was effortlessly increased by two years. What amazed me was that according to her memoir, she came to the U.S. on January 14, 1984. How could she start working for Lane Sharman as early as May 1984 in San Diego, California, a few months after she came to the United States, while she was attending ESL classes in Albuquerque, New Mexico?

This made me to reexamine her resumes because such time conflict would be reflected in her resumes. However, I found she never mentioned her nearly two and half years of studying experiences at the University of New Mexico. So after all, she was not that careless. There was a reason why she did not put her educational experience at the University of New Mexico in her resume, even though most people would list a school where they had attended for five semesters. That’s because if she listed it, there was no way she could say she worked for Lane Sharman as early as May 1984, and there was no way she could lengthen her work experience.

I hope Mr. Lane Sharman could read my post here, because he would have to explain how he had hired an international student without any work authorization almost “Fresh from Boat (FOB)” as people would jokingly say.

I truly feel sorry for all those people who somehow got entangled in Ms. Fu’s web of lies. They truly are the victims of Ms. Fu’s chicanery.

Ms. Ping Fu, a former member of the Chinese Communist Youth League, portraits herself in her book, Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds, as a victim of the Chinese communist regime during the Cultural Revolution and fabricated her way to the White House. She lied on her applications for federal grant applications (yes, more than once) and made up rags-to-riches stories to move many Americans readers. With the protection of her public relation team and some American media, Ms. Ping Fu, as of today, continues her stories around the world. The book, The Bent and Broken Truth: A Pathological Analysis of Ping Fu’s Rags-to-Riches Stories, peels off the seemingly glorious coat of a super survivor. To those who have read Bend, Not Break, this book should be an interesting read. It tells the truth behind Ms. Ping Fu’s book.﻿

Our book is out: The Bent and Broken Truth: A Pathological Analysis of Ping Fu’s Rags-to-Riches Stories.

Ms. Ping Fu, a former member of the Chinese Communist Youth League, portrays herself in her book, Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds, as a victim of the Chinese communist regime during the Cultural Revolution and fabricated her way to the White House. She lied on her applications for federal grant applications (yes, more than once) and made up rags-to-riches stories to move many Americans readers. With the protection of her public relation team and some American media, Ms. Ping Fu, as of today, continues her stories around the world. The book, The Bent and Broken Truth: A Pathological Analysis of Ping Fu’s Rags-to-Riches Stories, peels off the seemingly glorious coat of a super survivor. To those who have read Bend, Not Break, this book should be an interesting read. It tells the truth behind Ms. Ping Fu’s book.